American Health Care Act
Donald Trump said he will deliver:
- "good coverage at much less cost"
- "a much better health care plan at much less money."
He also said:
- "I'm not going to leave the lower 20% that can't afford insurance."
- "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."
- "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."
The Congressional Budget Office says this about the American Health Care Act(1)(2):
- ". . . in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law"
- ". . . the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026"
- "In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law".
- "In 2018 and 2019, according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than under current law, mainly because the individual mandate penalties would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up."
- "Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law, substantially reducing premiums for young adults and substantially raising premiums for older people."
- "The largest costs would come from repealing . . . an increase in the Hospital Insurance payroll tax rate for high-income taxpayers, a surtax on those taxpayers’ net investment income, and annual
fees imposed on health insurers"
- budgetary effects will mostly come from provisions like a cap on "the growth in per-enrollee payments for most Medicaid beneficiaries to no more than the medical care component of the consumer price index starting in 2020".
- "A reduction of $880 billion in federal outlays for Medicaid";
It also says:
- ". . . enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period".
- "By 2026, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market under the legislation would be roughly 10 percent lower than under current law, CBO and JCT estimate".
Outside of the CBO budgetary implications, the new legislation will:
- maintain the requirement that people with existing conditions cannot be denied coverage, but only as long as they maintain continuous coverage more. If they don't and try to re-enter the market when they are sick, they can be denied coverage, or charged higher premiums.
- continue to prohibit insurers having “lifetime limits” (a maximum on how much they will spend on a person's health care.
- maintain dependent coverage provision
So good news if you are a high-income taxpayer, but those tax cuts will be paid for by slashing Medicaid support. Not so good news if you are poor, an older person, or have an existing condition that causes you to lapse in your coverage. If you happen to be poor and an older person and have an existing condition etc., then I think it's bad news.
So has Trump delivered on his promises above?
(1) https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files … eact_0.pdf
(2) http://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM00/ … -SD005.pdfMy take on TrumpCare and ObamaCare:
Neither Obamacare nor Trumpcare deal with the fundamental reasons for rising costs of health care, e.g, inefficiency of hospital and other medical care facilities; under-reliance on primary care doctors; and over-reliance on specialists who remind patients to continue making appointments as soon as they are eligible for insurance reimbursement whether needed or not or whether any issue could be dealt with by a primary care physician; for profit medicine and laboratories; over-prescribing of drugs; monopoly pricing by pharmaceutical companies and huge amounts spent on television drug advertising and lobbying; the ordering of unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests especially in cases where the testing facilities are owned by those ordering the tests. That is, in my opinion, greater emphasis is needed on the fundamental causes of excessive increases in health care costs which are much higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries and with poorer results. Single payer is the obvious best answer.Single payer without caps on the tax based on income is the only fair solution. Sure government inefficiencies and overages will be incurred but that will be more than made up by eliminating the corporate grab all you can see the lobbyists have made us endure in the current failures. They continue to cap SS and are now trying to eliminate it in order to get out from under their criminal mismanagement of it and rip off the rest of us who were required to pay our percentages that through our own meager incomes they made us do.
I don't think anyone can reasonably deny Trump has failed, so far, to deliver what he said he would on healthcare.
Some might say Trump is not the first person to make promises while campaigning, then not deliver.
Fair enough. But I thought Trump wasn't like other politicians. I thought he was the man who can make "deals" and get things done. If so, where's the healthcare deal that delivers "good coverage at much less cost" for "everyone"?
And if he's such a great dealmaker, why wasn't he been able to get his own Bill through a Congress his party controls?
Do you think there's a high possibility that it's because Trump was talking BS all along?Perhaps he's taking a page from Obama's book and has decided it will take a second term to accomplish his goals. At least he hasn't declared that it would in his first few days in office.
this may well be the best chance he will get, with a GOP dominated House and Senate. There is no guarantee that he will get a second term and even if he does, he can not be certain that he will have a GOP dominant legislature to support his agenda.
With the amount of hate directed at one not of their own, republican OR democrat, it will remain with the people to force the issues. We've started - do we as a nation have the fortitude to accept the inevitable consequences of a massive clean up of Congress? Or do we want our goodies more?
(ps - that post about a second term was supposed to be rather tongue-in-cheek)
"And again, we're going to work quickly. It’s a great bill. We're going to have -- I really believe we're going to have tremendous support. I’m already seeing the support -- not only in this room, I’m seeing it from everybody"(Donald Trump, March 7 2017)(1).
"Now, we have to remember, Obamacare is collapsing and it's in bad shape. And we're going to take action. There's going to be no slowing down. There's going to be no waiting and no more excuses by anybody. We're all now, I can probably say I'm a politician. Okay? I am a politician. But we're going to get it done, and you're the leaders that really will get it done for all of us and for the American people"(Donald Trump, March 7 2017)(2).
Wow, sounds like he's going to use his amazing deal-making skills to get things done. So how did it pan out?
"Yeah, I don't know what else to say other than Obamacare's the law of the land. It's gonna remain the law of the land until it's replaced. We did not have quite the votes to replace this law. And so, yeah, we're gonna be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future"(Paul Ryan, March 25 2017)(3)
So it was not supported by everybody, there will be slowing down, and waiting and excuses. In other words, the complete opposite of Trump's version of reality.
I'm not sure it's funny to have a president who seems incapable of telling reality from his own fantasy land.
(1)(2) https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … meeting-us
(3) http://time.com/4713114/paul-ryan-ahca- … ranscript/"I'm not sure it's funny to have a president who seems incapable of telling reality from his own fantasy land."
No more that it is a population that can't figure out he will never be able to keep all his promises; they aren't his to keep. There really IS another faction involved here, one that lives in a swamp and desperately wants to stay there.
Truly, Don, it is almost comical to see the desperate straw-grabbing to find something to whine about.I didn't say these things about healthcare:
"There's going to be no slowing down"
"There's going to be no waiting and no more excuses by anybody".
"I’m already seeing the support -- not only in this room, I’m seeing it from everybody"
And no one forced Trump to say them either. He said them because he is either a liar, or just plain incompetent, or (most likely) both.
Do you think having a lying, incompetent president is a good thing? I don't.
And do you think any Trump supporter who can't admit when Trump clearly fails at something, is a bit fanatical? I do."No more that it is a population that can't figure out he will never be able to keep all his promises; they aren't his to keep. There really IS another faction involved here, one that lives in a swamp and desperately wants to stay there"
----------------------
You should not make promises that you are unable to keep. Did you resign yourself in the same way when Obama made promises?
What I seem to be hearing from you and Ken for example is that Trump is so much above the fray. Is that because he has a business background? I think that this 'swamp thing' is just so much semantics. You said that you wanted a more responsive Congress and Government, more accountable to the people. how do you think that Trump and his administration will bring that about?"You should not make promises that you are unable to keep. Did you resign yourself in the same way when Obama made promises?"
Did you believe them? Did anyone with half a brain believe them? Did you believe Obama's wild promises? Did anyone?
Seems to me that's the nature of American politics. Lie your way into office, lie your way into keeping it. Why should we expect other than that?
"Do you think having a lying, incompetent president is a good thing? I don't."
When was the last time we didn't have a president that made promises that were patently impossible to keep? Isn't that the definition of "lying, incompetent president" you're using here? So I guess I have to say it is a good thing, because there is no other option and it's better than not having a president at all. Or do you think we should leave the office vacant like we're doing with the SCOTUS?Trump is supposed to be the great outsider, not like all the others, the man who's going to change Washington. Now you're saying he probably won't do the things he promised, just like all the other politicians?
Sounds to me like you didn't vote for him because of the things he said he's going to do, which you apparently don't believe. You voted for him because you wanted to blow up the system.Wilderness, all presidential candidates support ideas during their campaigns many of which we all understand will be hard or impossible to keep. However, Trump carried this to a new level, several orders of magnitude beyond anything ever seen before in modern political history. Moreover, he continues to do so since being elected, causing many to doubt his ability to distinguish truth from fiction and even his sanity as well as his obvious character flaws.
Agreed. Your comments are accurate and insightful.
"However, Trump carried this to a new level, several orders of magnitude beyond anything ever seen before in modern political history. "
You mean like getting rid of the ObamaCare another president promised to put into place?
No - while it is politically helpfully to make such statements, they have no connection to the real world. Indeed, it is my own opinion that Trump will try to complete his promises, which few politicians do. Most have no intention at all in making even a small attempt.
Yes, I know there is a great furor over his sanity...by people that either too stupid to understand what the word means or by those using the ridiculous claims to sling mud. Not interested either way - let them make their silly claims.
That is mostly correct. The current modus operandi of our government is unacceptable and will destroy our country; with nothing else being offered the only step left to avoid that is to blow it up.
"What I seem to be hearing from you and Ken for example is that Trump is so much above the fray. Is that because he has a business background? I think that this 'swamp thing' is just so much semantics. You said that you wanted a more responsive Congress and Government, more accountable to the people. how do you think that Trump and his administration will bring that about?"
This was the part of the question that you did not answer, do you have an answer?I can only speak for myself, but suspect there are a great many others that have the same view.
The purpose of putting Trump in the White House was not to run roughshod over liberals, or even shut down the socialistic plans that doing so much damage. It was (hopefully) the first step in convincing lawmakers that the people demand (not want, not pray for, not wish for, but demand) leaders that are responsive to the needs of the nation rather than the wishes of a party. Things like the holdup on SCOTUS are not acceptable; the people have said that with the election of Trump and will speak again as necessary. Either work together for the good of the nation or get out of the way and allow those that WILL do the job to do it.
This SCOTUS thing is a prime example, IMHO. When the GOP used political games to try and maintain power for their party it was inexcusable. And the Dem's, doing nothing but posturing and throwing a tantrum without any hope for anything at all, is even worse. This kind of activity MUST be curtailed if we are to survive.I can only speak for myself, but suspect there are a great many others that have the same view.
OK, thanks
Why is Trump the solution for leaders not being responsive to the needs of the nation? Is it because he is so wealthy that he is beyond playing political games? Well Mitt Romney is a successful businessman, hardly a political animal having served only as Governor of Mass. How does Trump differ from Mitt? Is it Trumps persona that gives you all this confidence? Because a 'tough guy' persona is not enough.
Obama, when he was in office as with Trump now, must be aware that promises are hard to keep because all of the variables to be considered in keeping a promise that is not under their control.
In your opinion, Trump will keep his promise and curtail socialistic concepts that are ruining the country, that is your side that subscribes to that, and those are not universally held opinions.
Your example of the SCOTUS holdup is appropriate, one party short circuits the President's Constitutional obligation for its own political gain. In a situation like this, why should the Dems give in to the selection of a excessively conservative justice? Both parties are guilty, yet it is not fair to expect the Dems to disarm themselves today, letting bygones be bygones in the face of GOP intransigence over the last 8 years. Trump is going to change all that? How?
I may have answered my own question. Trump surprises me by not going along with extreme ends of the rabid Right's 'Freedom Caucus' by refusing to give up certain aspects of Obamacare. I am pleasantly surprised and give credit where it is due. The reality is that there will be no health care policy changes without bipartisan imput, in other words, you better work with the Democrats.
Trump is a Republican, and I am naturally going to have a conflict with the ideology and policy position of any Republican. Despite what you seem to indicate, working in the best interests of the nation do not necessarily have to take a conservative bent.
As for the 'activity' will Trump contain it, can he? Otherwise, he is nothing more than an expression of protest and frustration with no real substance behind him.Another thought on health care. Dental care should be included. According to an anticle in today's NYT Book Review "One third of white children go without dental care ... and that number is closer to one-half for black and Latino children." Coverage has been hotly opposed by dentists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/book … aman-.htmlRalph, I don't want to press our luck, it is hard enough to get certain groups of a certain political persuasion to see the virtue of not letting people die in the streets for lack of medical treatment. In light of this, talking about dental health goes to far.
"In light of this, talking about dental health goes to far."
Why? If it's good for the nation, then it's good for the nation. (That's another of my pet peeves - chipping away for years as is done with the pro-life and anti-gun crowds.)
Ralph, If I may offer a concurrence... If we are to have a national healthcare system, them I completely agree with the dental aspect, (and not just for children), and I would also include basic vision care. (no 'style or trendy' coverage, but basic access to vision improvement)
GARalph, I am surprised to learn that Dental care is not included in health insurance in America. In the UK, although, apart from the opticians and prescriptions (which do have nominal fees at the point of use) dentistry is the only part of the NHS where we do have to pay a small fee in Britain(maximum fee for a course of treatment currently being just £233.70, less than $300).
For six monthly dental check-ups on the NHS, which may require little more than advice on preventative care and a polish, it’s just £19.70 ($25).
However, a lot of patients are exempt from paying anything for NHS dental care, as this video (which provides further insight into NHS dental care in the UK) explains in more detail: - https://youtu.be/UbPAdk7xc78
Prescriptions (which apart from opticians), is the only other thing people have to pay for in the UK, although it's just £8.40 (about $10); maximum of £29.10 (about $37) for three months of prescriptions regardless to how many prescriptions you have in that period. Albeit most people in the UK get their prescriptions free anyway e.g. those under 19, over 60, on low pay, pregnant, had a baby within 12 months, unemployed or with a long term medical condition don’t pay for prescriptions.
How much does full dental care cost in the USA?I don't know how much dental care insurance costs. Quite a lot in my experience because dentist charge a lot and private insurance companies of course try to maximize premiums and minimize claims through co-pays, exclusions, etc.
Dental insurance isn't particularly expensive...but there is no reason to purchase it. I've looked at quite a few plans over the years and have yet to find even one that will pay out more in a year than is paid in premiums. Every one is a losing game for the buyer, regardless of how much or how little dental care is required.
I reached the same conclusion. (Before retiring, my employer provided dental and eye glass coverage. Now I pay for both out of pocket. Except Medicare covers a yearly eye exam by an ophthalmologist.
Thanks Ralph and wilderness. Without private insurance how do the costs of dental care in the USA compare to the NHS prices in the UK (as I detailed in my comment above); is it similar, cheaper or more expensive i.e. $25 for a six monthly check-up, or about $300 for a full course of major dental work, including dentures etc.
A routine cleaning by a dental assistant and inspection by a dentist recently cost me $125 if memory serves.
Thanks Ralph, your feedback is greatly appreciated.
"Your example of the SCOTUS holdup is appropriate, one party short circuits the President's Constitutional obligation for its own political gain. In a situation like this, why should the Dems give in to the selection of a excessively conservative justice?"
Maybe because the country needs another member of the court? Because it is set up to have one? Because it precludes a tied court? But none of that is nearly as important as posturing and thumbing noses at the GOP that did the same thing. Nothing else can possibly be expected or hoped for, and that's a mighty poor excuse for not doing their job.
"Despite what you seem to indicate, working in the best interests of the nation do not necessarily have to take a conservative bent."
Fortunately, I've never said or indicated that. Some Democratic ideas are good as well - I am a very firm supporter of social freedoms (gay rights, etc.).
"As for the 'activity' will Trump contain it, can he? Otherwise, he is nothing more than an expression of protest and frustration with no real substance behind him."
The thousand dollar question, isn't it? He's said he'll clean up the swamp, but can he even make a start, given the sorry state of the Hill? Will the people have to speak again, voting out large numbers of legislators? We'll see...
Well Damn Wilderness! I am not big on this +1 or +1,000,000,000, type of responses - only because it is not 'my style', (although I do like the cuteness of a certain forum member's "^5"), but I completely agree with your comment.
Concise and well stated. You don't need me as a witness, but if you did - I am there. Here is my ^5 to you.
GAAnd it never crossed your mind that the people advising Trump care less about being "responsive to the needs of the nation" and more about asserting a far-right, ultra-nationalist, "Christian" agenda? That seems a high price to pay for sending a message. Or do you, like them, believe a far-right, ultra-nationalist, Christian agenda is what the country needs?
I believe that what we need is a legislature concerned about the nation and it's needs more than those of their political party OR themselves. And we don't have it.
What Trumps advisers do or think is purely secondary and can be nothing but a transparent ploy to divert attention of the primary problem - that of legislators that don't care. Likewise for the far right Christian agenda; while there may be 2 or 3 legislators that follow that agenda they are of no real consequence to the nation and the reference is again nothing but a diversion to from the topic of legislators that refuse to do their job.So putting Trump in power was an attempt to shock Congress into doing it's job properly. Essentially Trump was the price you felt willing to pay for a properly functioning Congress.
A properly functioning Congress would have passed legislation that improves health care. Instead it passed . . . nothing. So has putting Trump in power made a positive difference to Congress?
The views of Trump's advisors are not a diversion. The 'freedom caucus' is cited as the main reason for no agreement on health care. Apparently it did not deem any proposals sufficiently right-wing enough(1). This is a group of around 'three dozen' members(2) with a far-right, Christian agenda. This group is now considering whether to force a floor vote on a 'repeal Obamacare only' Bill(3).
Which publication has championed this group's stance? Breitbart. And who ran Breitbart before he became Trump's chief advisor? Stephen Bannon. And who did Breitbart blame for this failure on health care? The freedom caucus? Trump (Bannon's current boss)? No, Paul Ryan, whom it refers to as a "Capitol Hill conservative".
The far-right Christian agenda is also not a 'diversion' to the millions of women whose health care is being restricted based on it's ridiculous ideas. This agenda now has a champion in the White House, pulling Trump's strings.
We've already seen them kill any attempt to improve health care. What will they kill next? Will they shoot down any legislation that isn't far-right enough? Could that make House Republicans and Democrats work together? If it does, I'll hail you as a political genius. If it doesn't, then the price you paid in the hope of getting a working Congress could prove very costly indeed for lots of people.
(1) http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/t … act-236507
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/p … icans.html
(3) http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/f … ext-236584First, let me apologize for not going back far enough in the thread and re-reading before replying. I replied to a different "thought" than this thread was about - that of the refusal to fill the SCOTUS.
But I'm more than a little confused anyway; you say "The views of Trump's advisors are not a diversion" and then immediately go into the freedom caucus, followed by " 'three dozen' members" (members of what?). Are these supposed to represent advisers?
"We've already seen them kill any attempt to improve health care." - again, is "them" Trumps advisers or members of congress? You really do seem to confuse his advisers with congress, particularly any GOP member of congress, under the idea that every Republican is in favor of Trump and anything he does. You know better.Health care or SCOTUS confirmations, it all relates to how Congress functions (or doesn't function).
Let me try to be clearer.
- I'm glad the AHCA didn't pass because I don't think it would have improved health care.
- But the process leading to this Bill's withdrawal further highlighted the schism within the Republican party between the centre and the far-right. The far-right stopped the AHCA, not because it wouldn't improve health care, but because it did not conform to a far-right, ultra-nationalist, anti-statist, "Christian" agenda.
- While I'm glad the Bill didn't pass, the resurgence of the far-right is of concern, more so than it previously was.
- The reason it is of more concern is because Trump's chief strategist shares exactly the same ideology as the far-right "freedom caucus".
He has declared himself (in various interviews) an anti-statist, ultra-nationalist who seeks to preserve "Judeo-Christian ideals". He views secularism as a "crisis among younger generations". He claims that "we're the voice of the anti-abortion movement, the voice of the traditional marriage movement, and I can tell you we’re winning victory after victory after victory"(1). He reportedly claimed to be a "leninist" because Lenin wanted to "destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment”.(2)
- All of Trump's key executive orders, and his legislative agenda, align with this far-right, anti-statist, ultranationalist, Christian agenda. From restricting healthcare for women, to refusing any Bill (via the "freedom" caucus) that doesn't completely remove government from health care, this far-right agenda can be seen. It's visible in Trump's executive orders, policy decisions, and now what legislation passes Congress. I don't know how much is from Trump and how much is from Bannon, but I strongly suspect Trump is doing what Banon advises him to.
- It seems your plan was to install Trump to jolt the political system back to life, which suggests that 1) you did not suspect (or want) Bannon and a far-right agenda, or 2) you knew that's what you were getting and wanted it because you believe a far-right agenda is what's best for the country.
Based on the views you've expressed I can see you are conservative, but you don't strike me as someone who subscribes to far-right ideology, so I conclude that Banon and the freedom caucus were not something you (and many others I suspect) bargained for.
- Can moderate Republicans work with Democrats to overcome the resurgence of the far-right? I don't know. Some conservatives are starting to make noises to that effect, with Priebus saying it might be time to "potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board, as well"(3). Whether that;s just lip service, or, if not, whether it will be enough to stop the country sliding to the far-right, remains to be seen.
Hope that clarifies my comments somewhat.
(1) http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ … w-visa-ban
(2) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … inist.html
(3) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/p … .html?_r=0No, I'm not from the far right - that segment of the political scene has just one glaring problem, but one so huge it absolutely precludes my participation. The idea that their god must be acknowledged and followed by all peoples is simply not acceptable under any circumstances - Patrick Henry comes to mind.
And no, at this point I don't see moderate conservatives and liberals working together. Moderate or not, neither is willing to cross the line into agreeing with the other side OR in making any kind of concession or cooperation. That a handful of the GOP did not vote the party line is more due to the screams of their constituents that would lose their freebies, nothing more. A matter votes and keeping their office, not a willingness to work together.
Of course I don't swallow your tall tale that Trump is following anything the far right wants, either - that they agree on a couple of minor points does not point to that.The plot thickens. Trump Tweeted:
"The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!"
I'll reserve judgement on whether this is a strategy, or whether it's Trump starting to push back against Bannon's agenda. I hope it's the latter, but I'm not that hopeful.As I don't think Trump gives a rats a$$ for "Bannon's agenda" it doesn't matter much. Yeah, I know that thousands of people think that the billionaire is being ordered around like a toddler, but I just have a hard time believing that.
I am sorry to see him going partisan, though. That's probably the biggest thing on the Hill that needs fixed - the incredibly massive partisanship, with the party determining the vote rather than the needs of the nation."I am sorry to see him going partisan, though. That's probably the biggest thing on the Hill that needs fixed - the incredibly massive partisanship, with the party determining the vote rather than the needs of the nation"
Wilderness, are you really surprised? I always knew this was the course that he would have to take, you can't clean a swamp without avoiding its stench indefinitely. He is no different than anybody else under these circumstances, and why people would think that he would be is beyond me.Of course you "knew" - anything bad is automatically attributed to him
But the fight from the GOP to keep him out, the almost total lack of assistance, the numbers of Republicans that refused to endorse him, his lack of political experience and "friends"; such things gave hope that he wouldn't become just another one of them.
Time will tell on Bannon. If (when) they part ways, I get the feeling it's going to be messy.
Not surprised you're sorry to see him going partisan. This is the man who said:
"I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it" (Donald Trump - RNC Conference 2016).
Apparently he alone can't fix it. Most sensible people knew that, which is why they dismissed his campaign rhetoric as nonsense. Now people who voted for him are going to find it out the hard way. I'd like to say I have some sympathy, but I don't.You're absolutely right - he can't do it alone and it was obviously just rhetoric. It WILL require bi-partisanship, which is why I'm sorry that he hasn't realized that yet. Perhaps he will. Or perhaps he will become just another partisan politician and the people's attempt failed.
Trump is clueless on how to fix anything. He's not interested in policy details. Only crowd pleasing slogans. He'll soon find that tax reform is a complicated as health care. Maybe he'll come up with something the Dems can buy into, but I doubt it.
Guess that's a matter of opinion, isn't it (Trump is clueless on how to fix anything.)? One could certainly say the same thing about liberal policies, whose only solution is always more money. Trump, on the other hand, understands the need for jobs, for fair wages (as opposed to wages set by committee that don't care what the value of the work is), and for strong borders.
No, he won't come up with anything for the Dems, but that's because whatever he does come up with will not be a Robin Hood, socialistic, program to force one person to pay for another and that's going to leave Dems out as that's all they know. Until they figure out that more money isn't a solution, that they need to work with those hated R's to improve the nation rather than a select few, they are going to be on their own for a while.
Looks like the break up between Bannon and Trump might be starting earlier than I thought.
Reports suggest Jared Kushner is behind Bannon's removal from the National Security Council.
I don't think Bannon is out of the running yet, but he'll find it hard going up against Kushner because of Kushner's family connection.
Prediction: watch the far-right, ultra-nationalist faction (Bannon's faction) go after Kushner. They may even turn on Trump.
Interesting to see all the different players fighting over who gets to pull Trump's strings.
I do not feel he has delivered on any promises. Attempting to implement policies and they backfire is not delivering. He stated that he alone could fix these things and nothing has changed. The AHCA was the biggest failure of them all. He did not even know what was in the bill he was endorsing. A bill that does not meet any of his promises.
Well, Trump really has no choice but to work within the GOP party - and since they are so incredibly divided on the subject, themselves (those damn 'moderate' swing states!) - its no surprise that their first time around wasn't successful. How can you get the rest of the country or any other political party to agree if you can't get a few people within your own party to agree?
However, I think this was a good first step - whether they decide to learn from it; or find a way to try and shove a new, similar policy down our throats is another question, entirely.
If they would stop trying to do just that - continue to shove policies that they know 'the majority' of American's don't want onto us - and make the effort to actually WORK WITH each other to create something good, maybe they really can come up with a decent healthcare policy that is acceptible to them without the Obama name that they hate so much tacked onto it.
We can hope & dream. They've been working & scrapping healthcare policies for decades. If so many people in this country weren't actually AFRAID of making something like healthcare available to everyone (mostly for religious reasons - I've actually been told that doing this would be EVIL in the eyes of God); then we might get somewhere. Its really hard to fight against erroneously-twisted & ingrained belief structures that cause FEAR of eternal damnation.
Trump has suggested that we leave Obamacare alone and just let it destroy itself - because it will supposedly implode on itself within MONTHS, its so bad. I'm glad the 1st round didn't pass for that reason: let's see how dangerous it is of imploding. If it doesn't implode - do you think that might be yet another 'alternative Trump fact'? LoL!
Who knew it was so complicated!
ObamaCare ain't looking so bad now, is it?
It all proves one thing: You can;t deliver everything you promise. Nobody can.It is very complicated. But Trump isn't--he's a pathological liar. That mess will never pass, many R's are against it as well. They need more time to work on it.
I would just see what Socialist country had the best system and do it that way. It's pathetic in such a rich country we have people dying because they have no ACCESS to healthcare. That one word changes a lot too, Paul Ryan just wants to try his economic plan which gives more to the rich and lets the poor die, or whatever, he doesn't care about people except in an abstract way.
Don is correct, the current plan is a disaster, and it was all lies from the start. Perhaps Trump will reject that plan when he sees how much opposition there is to it--plus that's only part of the plan. I shudder to think what the rest is. Ralph has a lot of good ideas. And everyone pays into an insurance pool ahorseback, that's how your car insurance and other insurances work. Except here, poor people have no healthcare and the rich get richer.How wrong you are , The Perfect Plan , would be if government got out of what it always fails to do to begin with , RUNNING ANY KIND OF SOCIAL PROGRAM , stop begging the entitlement from Uncle Sammy and let the industry handle health care like it always did before , regulated free completion between insurers and doctors.
Everybody ,Buy your own entitlement !ahorseback,
When you are diagnosed with cancer, or another deadly disease, and need immediate treatment or will die, you need the money up front to get any medical care. A person can't even get to the first doctor to do that and have a recovery plan by getting money in tax cuts at the next season. It will be too late.
Plus, your wonderful Trump promised everyone would be covered by "his" plan. I saw a town hall in WV this week, and many of those who voted for him have buyer's remorse.
I guess you or anyone you cared about never had a catastrophic illness which they didn't bring onto themselves.
Why would you go to a failed economic/political system to see how to do anything at all?
The democratic, mixed private enterprise/socialist economies are hardly failures. Nearly all of them have universal, single-payer health care which costs much less and produces demonstrably better results than our health care system. I live across the river faom Windsor, Ontario and every time I meet a Canadian I ask them whether they would trade their health care program for the U.S. system. Although some grumble a bit about having to wait for non-emergency care, I have yet to meet a single one who would trade their Canadian single payer system for our system.
From the post I replied to: "I would just see what Socialist country had the best system and do it that way." No mention of a mixed economy. And many of those mixed systems are failing badly, with the stronger socialistic ones doing the worst.
It's true that most socialistic society likes their "free" health care - most people, conditioned to being given something important to them will be unhappy if they suddenly have to provide it themselves. Canadians - I continue to see where they come to the US to get their care because of the wait times in Canada, so not sure that is a good example of a "superior" system. Generally, living with pain or a malfunctioning body is not particularly desirable.
But the bottom line is responsibility of the citizen: are we as individuals responsible for our lives or is the great DC Nanny to blame for our failures as individuals. It is important to me to feel independent, to be responsible for my own life (even if it's only perception); others want the guidance and support of Big Government to care for them, provide for them and make sure they live a "proper" life."No mention of a mixed economy. And many of those mixed systems are failing badly, with the stronger socialistic ones doing the worst."
Just curious which are the many mixed systems that are failing badly, and which are the
"stronger socialistic ones doing worst." The ones I'm familiar with are doing pretty well (the Scandinavian countries and most of the European countries--UK--Germany, France--except for Greece and Spain.) Nearly all of them rank higher than U.S. in public education, and social welfare, and their economies are quite productive. Some of them do suffer from over-regulation."Just curious which are the many mixed systems that are failing badly"
Start with Greece. You take it from there.
Ranking high in "social welfare" is hardly an indication of a "superior" economy or society - just the opposite as it is a strong indication that one or the other (or both) are failing the people. That the US has very poor education in general is a result of Big Government interfering with teaching - a socialistic program even if not true socialism.
And yes, they ALL suffer from over-regulation. Even worse that the US does.Greece and Spain are not typical. Nearly all the others are doing fine. Inequality of wealth and income is much less of an issue in European democracies than here. We are becoming more and more like a banana republic or a middle eastern country where wealth is concentrated among a tiny number of individuals who use their control over the government to enrich themselves, as Trump and his family are currently doing here.
Great Britain is not doing "fine". Neither is France. Mostly it is the tiny Scandinavian countries that are and they are hardly a suitable role model for something like the US.
Of course the socialistic countries have less inequality of wealth - that's what they are all about! Making sure everyone gets the same, regardless of contribution! But I'm still struggling with those "problems" with that inequality; given the massive disparity between lifestyle, possessions, etc. between today and 60 years ago it's difficult to see any real "problems" Greed, of course, is always there, and increasing entitlements coupled with baseless attacks on wealth will easily convince the gullible that because one person has more, they should too. It's what causes socialism and the loss of productivity, responsibility and motivation that comes with it.The attacks on wealth aren't baseless. Since the 1970s in the U.S. and a number of other countries there has been a huge redistribution of wealth and income from the poor and middle class to the top one or two percent. Many observers see this as an undesirable trend. Apparently you do not and the Trump supporters and right wing Republicans do not. .
Baseless? Of course it is not - the very wealthy are now much MORE wealthy than they used to be. Of course, so are the "poor", but that doesn't mean the wealthy aren't.
Outside of greed and jealousy of those that don't accumulate wealth, though, I fail to see a real problem. It certainly hasn't stopped the "poor" from becoming richer than the poor used to be, after all. While I recognize that liberals and left wing Democrats are pushing propaganda that it IS a problem, that problem remains solely in the minds of those that want what they do not earn as far as I can see. Just another method to divide the country into opposing camps.Increasing numbers of people believe that our economic and political system unfairly benefits the richest Americans through tax loopholes, use of overseas tax havens and unlimited political contributions. Redistribution has been a one way street--from the poor and middle class to the one percenters. Real wages have been flat since the 1970s. It may not be long before the mobs with pitch forks will be coming. Reasonable unequal distribution of wealth and income provides a useful incentive for economic progress. However, I haven't heard anyone saying how much inequality is enough. Trump isn't likely to do much of anything for the middle class or the poor. TrumpCare envisions a huge financial benefit to high income individuals and a huge deficit for the rest low and middle income people. Trump's proposals are screwing the people who helped elect him.
It's true that working class Americans' incomes increased in our economy for a hundred years or so, but this has not been true for the past thirty or forty years.Ralph , thank God for the free market system in the US. What you call " redistribution [of wealth] ,....... being a one way street " Is actually the system of entrepreneurism at work . Maybe if planned parenthood actually worked there might be something "In the wings " for the system supported , poor . Talk about Preventative Medicine , .that which liberals so much love to shake and bake in discussion , stop PRODUCING poverty and poverty might then recede into oblivion .
Why don't you stop hypocritically blaming the rich for the poor . It's really so intellectually shallow.Why don't you stop hypocritically blaming the rich for the poor . It's really so intellectually shallow.
Because the rich, e.g., the Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs, the Pharmaceutical companies, the Wall Street banks, hedge fund and private equity operators and so forth are in control, thanks to Citizens United and their monopoly position, and they are using their money, tax loopholes and monopoly positions unfairly to further enrich themselves beyond belief and elect people like Paul Ryan who is a devotee of Ayn Rand's objectivism and lunatics like Trump. Compensation of garden variety CEOs who haven't contributed a new idea in their entire careers while the real wages of their employees has declined and their jobs have disappeared.Now hold on a minute Ralph, I think that if you stop a mile or two short of Ayn Rand's extreme perspective of 'Objectivism', there is a lot of validity to her concept. How can you think to make other people happy if your efforts don't make you happy first?
GAAnd so , now the political pendulum swings the other way . I can name as many liberal mega-rich like the George Soros' of the left , You will now have to learn a valuable lesson as a New Liberal , It is no longer your turn "at the helm " ,sorry , can't steer the ship when its the other guys turn , no matter how much you whine .
The" hope and change" turned all that around ...........didn't it ?More redistribution from the poor to the rich:
Remember: Nobody voted to cut Medicare or Medicaid. But Trumpcare has $880 million in cuts to Medicaid alone, and raids $117 billion from Medicare--cutting nearly $1 trillion from both programs that will be used for a massive tax break for the wealthy!
Earlier this week, we highlighted five Republican Senators who had expressed reservations about voting for Trumpcare. That list keeps growing. 13 Republican Senators are now on record with deep reservations about gutting the Affordable Care Act and enacting Trumpcare in its place.
Keep the pressure on! Sign the petition to these 13 Republican Senators and tell them to reject Trumpcare which would force 24 million people off of their healthcare in order to give a massive tax break to the wealthy.
Donald Trump ran for President on a promise that he would protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from cuts, and that his healthcare plan would “take care of everybody.” Trumpcare does the opposite.
On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office (whose director was hand-picked by Speaker Paul Ryan), released its analysis showing that Trumpcare would cause 24 million people to lose health insurance in the next decade. And Republicans are starting to feel the heat!
Senator Bill Cassidy (LA) called the score “awful” and said, “That's not what President Trump promised.”
Senator Tom Cotton (AK) said Trumpcare “would have adverse consequences for millions of Americans.”
And Senator Susan Collins (ME) called Trumpcare “dead on arrival” in the Senate.
We need three firm NO votes in the Senate to stop Trumpcare and stop Republicans from devastating the future of Medicare and Medicaid.
Stand with Social Security Works today and tell these 13 Republicans to reject Trumpcare.
The 13 Senators include:
Senators Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), Tom Cotton (AR), Ted Cruz (TX), Cory Gardner (CO), Dean Heller (NV), Mike Lee (UT), John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rand Paul (KY), Rob Portman (OH), and David Purdue (GA).
Together, we must stop Trumpcare, which will cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid!
Thank you for standing with us,
Michael Phelan
Social Security Works
Oh my Gawd! There it is again - "Shallow"
I just have to work harder to get out of this 'shallow' end of the gene pool!
Unfortunately for both of us, and even though I am a staunch Capitalistic Free market advocate, I don't think following your thought process will do the job for me.
GALike Hilary - You too can decide to "Come out of the woods " and rejoin reality .
No thanks bud, I am comfortable with the reality of my "woods", and will stay right here. It is your reality that I worry about.
GAHere's the way it's working under Trump:
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/mercers/Hello again Ralph, I'm not sure why you directed that response to me, but I did follow your link. And interestingly, the following link popped up:
Steve bannon - The Film Maker
Could you consider that there is more depth to Steve Bannon than the "White Supremacist" characterization of the Left?
I haven't looked into Steve Bannon enough to support this as an alternative perspective, but it is an interesting thought.
And I would offer that what you infer is a negative, is seen as a positive to many Americans.
GA
Great Britain is doing fine, thank you wilderness; we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world (GDP).
As regards our healthcare, we Brits love it:-
The healthcare in Britain (NHS), which was founded by the Socialist Labour Government in 1948, in the aftermath of the 2nd world war (at a time when Britain was almost bankrupt), has one fundamental principle:-
Free healthcare for all at the point of use.
And we don’t need to worry about how we are going to pay medical insurance, because we don’t have any. The NHS is funded by the Government from taxes; even the Doctors and most Consultants are Public Employees.
It has been said that the NHS is the nearest thing British People have to a religion; as this short video explains:- https://youtu.be/bDdZCv5v2Rg"As regards our healthcare, we Brits love it:"
That may change soon - I'm seeing rumbles that it is going downhill and the concept isn't sitting well. But I do agree that it is the only way to go if a nation is going to guarantee health care for everyone - simply give it to them to the limits of that nation's ability to hire doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc.Your comment:-
“That may change soon - I'm seeing rumbles that it is going downhill and the concept isn't sitting well.”
A common misconception I’ve heard many times from Americans over the years. A misconception which I can understand, for someone who lives over 4,000 miles away; as they are not in a position to fully appreciate the situation because their prime source of information is the news media, and the Internet (which only gives a blinkered view).
The fact is that the NHS is a Socialist concept, so when the Conservatives (right wing Capitalist Government, very much like the Republican Party) are in power, there’s always friction between the Doctors and the Government (their paymaster). This friction spills out into the ‘Press’, with the facts getting twisted and exaggerated as it gets reported by various news media such as Fox News and CNN etc.
This ‘Bad Press’ is nothing new; it’s happens each time the Conservatives have been in power since the early 1980s.
However, in spite of the Conservatives distain for the system because its Socialism and not Capitalism, the NHS is just as popular with their voters (Conservative voters) as it is with the rest of the nation e.g. it’s a vote winner.
Therefore, since the 1980’s all Conservatives election manifestos have included the slogan:-
“The NHS is Safe in Our Hands”.
So apart from the bickering between the Doctors (GPs) and their pay master (the Conservative Government), which always gives a ‘bad press’, the Conservatives are committed to the NHS e.g. to be seen not supporting the NHS would lose them valuable votes at the next general election.
Perhaps this American video on the NHS might help to reassure you that (in spite of the exaggerations in some Press reports) that the NHS is alive and kicking: - https://youtu.be/qMNuxPByEW0Personally I would take a decrease in the care to go to what the NHS can offer, but that's just me. I'm not sure that most Americans would agree - we've gotten pretty used to the care, if not the higher cost, of that care.
Yes I can understand your sentiments wilderness. It is a fact that the NHS doesn’t offer private beds in hospitals, and the waiting list for non-urgent treatment that requires an operation or seeing a Specialist is 18 weeks; which compared to America is less good.
However, I’m not sure that there is a decrease in the care in the NHS compared to American healthcare in all other respects?
In this regard:
1. In an emergency you can phone 999 for an ambulance to take you to hospital, which from my experience usually arrives within minutes; or you can take yourself to A&E (Accident and Emergency) where you will be seen and treated quickly.
2. For non-emergency you have many choices, some dependent on the nature of your illness or condition, as follows:
• You can make an appointment to see your GP, which make take a few days unless it’s urgent.
• You can go to any Pharmacist for free advice and buy a non-described drug over the counter e.g. cough medicine for a simple cold and where you want something to ease the symptoms.
• Go to one of the ‘Walk-in Centres’, which requires no appointment and where you will be seen straight away, for simple urgent and free treatment for conditions that is not long term or life threatening.
• Go to one of the ‘Minor Injury Units’ for immediate free treatment e.g. for a twisted ankle or a sprain in the shoulders etc.
• Phone 111 (free phone call) a 24/7 phone service with GPs and Specialists on hand, for free medical advice and information; and if during the call they determine that it might be an emergency they will call an ambulance for you.
• Visit the NHS website (called Your Choice), which is packed with up to date information and advice. The website includes a list of local services, and a comprehensive alphabetical list of just about every known medical condition and illness, along with their symptoms and treatment; and advice on self-help where appropriate.
• Or just walk into your local A&E (Accident and Emergency). A&E are committed to seeing you within 4 hours of your arrival, regardless to how minor or inappropriate your visit is (emergency arrivals are channelled through a different route in A&E and treated urgently).
It’s the A&E that gets the bad publicity in the Press because too many people will walk into an A&E for minor treatment rather than bothering to see their GP, and A&E will not turn anyone away; which means A&E often don’t meet their target of seeing 95% of these patients within 4 hours.
The official figures for 2017 so far is that 49% of people visited A&E unnecessarily; 11% of people who attended A&E required no treatment and 38% only required guidance or advice.
On average, about 2 million people visit A&E monthly (more during the winter months because of flu etc.). Last year there was 22.9 million visits to A&E in England (from a population of 53 million).
I don’t know how all this compares to America, but I would like your opinion?
This video quickly explains in simple terms the choice patents have when they feel they need medical help or advice:- https://youtu.be/Gt4ahgq60-Q
Wilderness,
If it would save innocent people's lives I would study any country's system which was working and copy the parts of it that worked. It doesn't have to be Socialist, it could be anything. But it has to cover all people in the richest part of the world. Our health care, infant mortality rate and other rates of recovery are terrible for a country who claims to be "exceptional."
The pharmaceutical companies are part of the issue, a big problem. But there are many factors.
But I'm sure we can do better, it's the crazy people like Paul Ryan who want to try out other economic systems as an experiment. It won't change his life at all if other families lose loved ones while he's playing God. I think Congress and the House should have their Cadillac healthcare plans taken away, and have to live like other Americans. See how hard it is and how either one illness can wipe out a family, or at least get some idea we don't all work a few days a month for what we have in health care and benefits. Many people work 3 jobs and get very little. Of course, R's don't like minimum wage increases or anything that helps another person.Every person that I know who has had a catastrophic health care issue has either lost most of their personal "assets " because of under or no insurance , OR they have been fully covered by a legitimate and viable insurance company that THEY themselves paid for, for whatever period of time that they did .
The system already has a built in uninsured cost " write off " for those who don't have insurance . Thus all hospital systems being viable , taxable business' , most people that "Die In the streets " do NOT do so because of the lack of insurance coverage .
What most liberals want ? A British system that is all inclusive -paid for by taxation . To hell with what said taxation costs ALL others , to hell with whatever else has to be cut or eliminated for that entitlement , the military , the infrastructure , the environment ,whatever ,wherever the federal government service . Cut it too pay for my aspirin !
Question --Is mandatory free health care by the feds provided for in the original US.constitution ?Question --Is mandatory free health care by the feds provided for in the original US.constitution ?
Of course not. So what? Slavery was legal under the original constitution, and women couldn't vote. Time marches on. U.S.. health care is the costliest and least effective among advanced countries.Simply because it is unregulated in systematic and system wide profiteering , Ryan -care isprobably going to pass next week ! Gtreat .........All of the Obama Care should be repealed and let the free market system work - That's the difference between America and the rest .
When America is no longer the guardian of the free world - Then and only then should we look at federally provided health care .
There are a few problems with this approach. You talk as if there is a one-solution-fits-all, but there isn't. What works in one country may well not work in another.
You are certainly correct in that there are other factors, too. Americans are obese. Their diet is atrocious. They use drugs. They smoke. Things like this very definitely affect lifespan and health, and to blame a poor health care system for the problems stemming directly from bad habits doesn't make a lot of sense.
Nor is it Ryan playing God - it is the liberal community that declares "You have too much - I'll take it and give it to someone else I think deserves it more than you do." THAT'S playing God - not forcing or allowing a person to be responsible for themselves.
It's always really comical to hear a socialist moan that conservatives don't want to "help" someone...as they take, at gunpoint, what someone has rightfully earned for themselves.Little tale that happened to me just last year: My wife had had abdominal pain for some months, centered, we thought, around the bowel. Constipation, etc.
When her yearly checkup came around (required by Obamacare) she talked to the doctor about it and as a colonoscopy was due, she was set up with a specialist and a clinic to get that done in the hopes it would find something that would help.
It was scheduled for Wednesday morning, and the preparation was all done properly (quite uncomfortable and unpleasant if you've never had one), but when she went in they found there was a blockage and it could not be performed. The specialist called the hospital and, because of the nasty prep work that would have had to be repeated, set her up with an immediate special CAT scan and an office visit with a surgeon. Within an hour we had transferred to the hospital, had the CAT scan and were headed to the surgeon's office. Remember, this is NOT an emergency situation yet the CAT scan (some kind of specialized one requiring a special machine) AND a surgeon's office visit were scheduled in less than an hour. The CAT scan was performed, read and transmitted to the surgeon with less than an hour's notice.
The surgeon indicated major surgery was needed - a bowel resection - and tried to schedule it for that Friday, two days away. Again, it was NOT an emergency, and as we had a trip planned for Saturday (I was to officiate at a wedding in another state) we asked to put it off until the following Friday, a week away.
The surgery was performed in a pleasant, clean hospital decorated with patient's mental attitudes in mind. She had a private room with WIFI, TV and phone service. They helped her set up chargers for her computer and cell phone.
So when you talk about how atrocious our health care is, think about that. We could have had a specialized CAT scan, surgeon's office visit AND surgery done in just two days...for a non-emergency situation. This is not something you will find hardly anywhere else, and is not something that happens with nationalized health care.The liberal community is just asking for basic decency for their fellow man. Any normal rich person who has too much money and has to hide it in the Cayman Islands or other places, to not be taxed, should want to help the working poor. Stephen King and The Gates family are two examples who agree with this. People must work together in order to have a civil society.
I have scoliosis from a birth defect and my Father paid into insurance all his life, and I did since I was 18. I'm not asking for a handout, I worked hard for what I have, as he did. But ACCESS isn't anything. I have ACCESS to a Porsche but can't afford to buy one. To live in a society where the born rich who never had to worry have all the wealth, and are so selfish they won't give a hand up to people who are desperately ill, is just plain disgusting.
Obamacare doesn't have to be repealed, it has to be improved upon. The rich shouldn't be getting MORE tax cuts on the backs of sick people. Both sides have to come together and work it out. The expanded Medicaid is a problem in my state in some ways. It does help some who have no health care get covered, but many doctors won't take it. Or only "bottom of the barrel doctors" will take it. Most specialists don't take it if your problems are more serious.
Since it's a Capitalist system, these doctors can't be forced to take Medicaid, but it narrows a sick person's options to get well quite a bit. There is no ACCESS to tests that are necessary and the patient can't wait. I don't know what the solution is, but would still poll other countries to see what it is that makes their systems work and borrow some ideas from that. Especially as I have more health problems now, and not ones I brought on myself. I don't drink, overeat, or have any habits that make me sick. So now we should blame people for getting sick? Or for having hypertension that runs in the family, or for the continuing issues that come from scoliosis, the special heart and lung care specialists needed as precautionary measures?
Wilderness, I'm glad your wife's situation worked out well. But apparently the patient/doctor ratio or amounts covered under your insurance are better than many people have. Actually I think we talked about this, is she on Medicare? I am now, but it's costing me a fortune and I have to go to specific doctors, not the ones I used to have. And there is a long wait to get an appointment. I worked all my working life in chronic pain and yes, I believe the government owes me better than that.
As I said, take away Congress' great plans and put them on a plan a person who makes $30,000.00 a year is on, and let's see how they like it, and balk about Medicare's plans and parts that are such a ripoff after all the years we work to get it. Maybe it would be an eye opening experience for them. On a town hall I watched the other night, working people have to choose between food and health care. For conservatives who claim to be so moral, there's a lot of "me, me, me" coming from conservatives. They didn't learn that in Church.Jean, people say that I am harsh and unreasonable regarding conservatives. But, I have yet to hear any one of them advocate that members of congress, the military and the big shots be put in the precarious position that the typical 30K annual earner finds himself in under Trumpcare.
Credence 2,
I didn't say the military should have to scrape by on $30,000.00 a year and what it buys. They deserve the best, as do veterans. It's the uber rich that can afford to kick some more cash in before they buy another company or yacht. Yes, it's a hard decision. But the rest of us have to make hard decisions about whether we have enough money to afford health care, a decision to live or die. I believe that's more important.Jean, you said,
You can't see the forest to the trees when it comes to this issue. I don't want to further argue it, except to wonder that you can't seem to see that the system is rigged in favor of the rich
----
Because we all know that the 'system' is rigged in favor of the rich, I am not terribly broken up about the idea that they are required to pay more into the national tax coffers on a percentage basis.
I hear you about military vets, that was in error in my litany of 'fat cats', there not on the list. But there are plenty of people out there who would just as soon gore your ox before so much as a head on their heads be disturbed."Because we all know that the 'system' is rigged in favor of the rich"
An interesting statement, considering that the rich pay 10X, 100X or even 1,000X what the rest of us do to support the country and it's people. Or are you another that figures their possessions and wealth (as opposed to yours) belongs to the greedy Progressives and that keeping it out of their voracious maw constitutes "rigging" the system?An interesting statement, considering that the rich pay 10X, 100X or even 1,000X what the rest of us do to support the country and it's people. Or are you another that figures their possessions and wealth (as opposed to yours) belongs to the greedy Progressives and that keeping it out of their voracious maw constitutes "rigging" the system?
I told you they should pay more, didn't I. Let's not get ridiculous with hyperbole here as to the extent of the numbers. Someone mentioned that the tax code allowed Donald Trump to pay 25 percentage of his income as a billionaire. The Rich virtually run the Government, and are kept in position with stronger influence by the GOP. Until their tentacles are removed from that inordinate influence, I have no problem with their paying more.Well, lets see - Trump likely earned in the neighborhood of several million, so let's start with a 3M income. Of which he paid 25%, or $750,000. If he only earned 3 Million, that puts him on the bottom end of the uber rich, but we'll use him anyway.
But how many people paid even 1/10 of that figure ($75,000) in taxes? Not very many! I didn't pay even 1/100 of it, or $7500. Nearly half the nation pays a net of 0, so they aren't even paying 1/1000th. So what is this ridiculous hyperbole with numbers? Just that you'd rather use the 25% because it hides the actual tax and thus sounds better?
Truly, it sounds if you ARE one of those that have decided that whatever you want is yours to grab, and it really ticks you off when you can't reach it.
Credence,
My post was out of order and I forget who I was addressing, it wasn't you. I wouldn't shed a tear to see the rich pony up more money. The way they "hide" what they really have in offshore accounts so they don't have to pay taxes on all their money disgusts me. Now the R's want to cut the Environmental Protection Agency, they always want to get rid of Sesame Street, a show made to help educate young children who didn't have access to nursery school, and any money towards the humanities. They also want to cut "Meals on Wheels" a program where old or ill people who are so sick they can't leave the house get one meal (a lousy one) delivered to their homes. If the rich who are using laws designed for them to cheat the system paid what they owed, we shouldn't have to cut anything. The US has enough weapons and bombs to destroy the world many time over, the military doesn't need money (except for those who served, have PTSD and need housing and such).
I have a lot of other writing work to do, so have to take myself out of this discussion. There are only so many hours in the day.
Almost your entire post is about a liberal attitude at odds with reality and with itself.
"The liberal community is just asking for basic decency for their fellow man."
"Basic decency" - as in taking from whomever they wish to do with as they wish? That decency? Somehow it's always forgotten (or ignored) that what the liberals want doesn't belong to them - it is the fruit of someone else's labor, someone who has every right to keep it themselves. It is only "might makes right" that allows the taking of their wealth for liberal purposes.
"Any normal rich person who has too much money and has to hide it in the Cayman Islands or other places, to not be taxed, should want to help the working poor."
But what you really mean is that anyone that has to hide their possessions from you in order to keep them should want to use their wealth as YOU think they should. It belongs to them - what makes your stance that it belongs to you correct?
"People must work together in order to have a civil society."
Again, what is really meant is that YOU get to decide what happens to the property of others, for "working together" inevitably means "give me what you have, that I can buy what I don't have".
"To live in a society where the born rich who never had to worry have all the wealth, and are so selfish they won't give a hand up to people who are desperately ill, is just plain disgusting."
Why? Because you want it for your own purposes? You use your wealth as you see fit - why can't others? Because YOU find their choice of usage somehow "wrong" doesn't mean it whether you ignore the universal morality of the Golden Rule or not.
"Obamacare doesn't have to be repealed, it has to be improved upon."
Agreed, if we decide we will give health care to everyone. But it would seem that your "improvement" merely means to take what another person has earned. This is not "improvement"; it's theft. Acknowledging that in our society the majority can do that legally (and do) it is not more ethical or moral than the evil rich not spending their wealth as you think they should.
"I don't know what the solution is, but would still poll other countries to see what it is that makes their systems work and borrow some ideas from that. Especially as I have more health problems now, and not ones I brought on myself."
You have problems, not brought on by the rich, and want them to take care of it FOR you? It isn't their problem, it isn't their fault either, and they have nothing to do with it - why are they responsible for your problems? This is what I mean when I said that the attitudes are not connected to reality.
No, my wife is not on medicare - she is on a subsidized ObamaCare plan. One which left us with $10,000 of medical bills we paid by withdrawing from a small IRA that must serve us for the rest of our lives. $10,000 we paid, whereupon the ObamaCare subsidy had to be paid back because we "earned" too much by paying the health care bills we owed. Works great, doesn't it? But you should be able to do better than what it sounds like you are, with medicare. I'm on it, with a HMO type of plan and a designated doctor just as you are, but it costs me nothing (in premiums; the out of pocket is $6,700). Haven't used it, so don't know how it will work out, but it's "free", at least to me.
"As I said, take away Congress' great plans and put them on a plan a person who makes $30,000.00 a year is on, and let's see how they like it"
I see this all the time - does it mean we should cut ALL employer plans to the same level? Or just those of our employees in congress? Big Business must give their employees a great health plan, but the employees of the people don't get one?
"For conservatives who claim to be so moral, there's a lot of "me, me, me" coming from conservatives. "
Sure enough...but the difference is that they want to keep what they've earned. The liberals, on the other hand, are just as "me, me, me", but with what OTHERS have earned. They didn't learn THAT in church, either - there isn't a single instance of Christ demanding that anyone give him what they owned so he could use it as He pleased. At best He indicated they should give it (albeit to the poor, not to Him) but the liberals demand it be given, at gunpoint if necessary.THE FAKE FREEDOM OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE
Last week the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new Republican health plan would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 24 million people within a decade, mostly because changes in regulations, subsidies and Medicaid coverage would make insurance too expensive for them.
Republican leaders seem unfazed by this, perhaps because, in their minds, deciding not to have health care because it’s too expensive is an exercise of individual free will. As Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, put it: “Americans have choices. And they’ve got to make a choice. And so maybe, rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love, and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.”
There is an appealing logic to such thinking. The idea is that buying health care is like buying anything else. The United States is home to some of the world’s best medical schools, doctors, research institutes and hospitals, and if you have the money for the coverage and procedures you want, you absolutely can get top-notch care. This approach might result in extreme inequalities and it might be expensive, but it definitely buys you the best medical treatment anywhere. Such is the cost of freedom. As House Speaker Paul Ryan put it in a tweet: “Freedom is the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need.” Vice President Mike Pence picked up that baton: “Obamacare will be replaced with something that actually works — bringing freedom and individual responsibility back to American health care.”
In practice, though, this Republican notion is an awfully peculiar kind of freedom. It requires most Americans to spend not just money, but also time and energy agonizing over the bewildering logistics of coverage and treatment — confusing plans, exorbitant premiums and deductibles, exclusive networks, mysterious tests, outrageous drug prices. And more often than not, individual choices are severely restricted by decisions made by employers, insurers, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and other private players. Those interest groups, not the consumer, decide which plans are available, what those plans cover, which doctors patients can see and how much it will cost.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
Opinion Editorial
Trading Health Care for the Poor for Tax Cuts for the Rich MARCH 13, 2017
Opinion David Leonhardt
The Original Lie About Obamacare MARCH 14, 2017
Health Bill Would Add 24 Million Uninsured but Save $337 Billion, Report Says MARCH 13, 2017
And I haven’t even mentioned the millions of Americans who don’t earn enough to pay for insurance or a lifesaving treatment. If you can’t afford it, not buying it is hardly a choice.
Eight years ago I moved to the United States from Finland, which like all the Nordic nations is a wealthy capitalist economy, despite the stereotypes you may have heard. And like all those countries, Finland has invested in a universal, taxpayer-funded and publicly managed health care system. Finns constantly debate the shortcomings of their system and are working to improve it, but in Finland I never worried about where my medical care came from or whether I could afford it. I paid my income taxes — which, again despite the stereotypes, were about the same as what I pay in federal, state and local income taxes in New York City — and if I needed to see a doctor, I had several options.
For minor medical matters, I could visit a private physician who was provided as a perk by my employer. Or I could call the public clinic closest to my home. If I saw the private doctor, my employer picked up the tab, with the help of public subsidies. If I went to the public clinic, it might cost me a small co-payment, usually around $20. Had I been pregnant, most care would have been free.
If I had wanted to, I also could have easily paid to see a private doctor on my own, again with the help of public subsidies. All of this works without anyone ever having to sign up for or buy health insurance unless he wants additional coverage. I never had to worry whether I was covered. All Finns are covered for all essential medical care automatically, regardless of employment or income.
Republicans are fond of criticizing this sort of European-style health care. President Trump has called Canada’s national health care system “catastrophic.” On CNN recently, Senator Ted Cruz gave multiple examples of how patients in countries with universal, government-managed health care get less care than Americans.
In Europe, he said, elderly people facing life-threatening diseases are often placed in palliative care and essentially told it’s their time to go. According to the Republican orthodoxy, government always takes away not only people’s freedom to choose their doctor, but also their doctor’s ability to choose the correct care for patients. People are at the mercy of bureaucrats. Waiting times are long. Quality of care is dismal.
But are Republicans right about this? Practically every wealthy capitalist democracy in the world has decided that some form of government-managed universal health care is the most sensible and effective option. According to the latest report of the O.E.C.D. — an organization of mostly wealthy nations — the United States as a whole does not actually outshine other countries in the quality of care.
In fact, the United States has shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality and fewer doctors per capita than most other developed countries. When it comes to outcomes in some illnesses, including cancer, the United States does have some of the best survival rates in the world — but that’s barely ahead of, or even slightly behind, the equivalent survival rates in other developed countries. In breast cancer survival, for example, the United States comes in second, after Sweden. Third-best is Norway, then Finland. All three countries have universal, government-run health care systems.
For colorectal cancer, the five-year survival rate after diagnosis in the United States brings it to a not very impressive ninth place in the O.E.C.D. statistics. Ahead of the United States are South Korea, Israel, Australia, Sweden and Finland, all with some form of government-managed universal health care. And when it comes to cervical cancer, American women are at a significant disadvantage: The United States comes in only 22nd. Meanwhile, life expectancy at age 65 is higher in 24 other developed nations, including Canada, Britain and most European nations.
Americans might still assume that long waits for care are inevitable in a health care system run by the government. But that’s not necessarily the case either. A report in 2014 by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation specializing in health care research, ranked the United States third in the world in access to specialists. That’s a great achievement. But the Netherlands and Switzerland did better. When it comes to nonemergency and elective surgery, patients in several countries, including the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, all of which have universal, government-guided health care systems, have faster access than the United States.
It’s not just American patients who endure endless bureaucratic hassles. American doctors were also significantly more likely to report as major problems the amount of time they spent on dealing with administrative burdens related to insurance and claims, as well as on getting patients medications or treatment because of restrictions imposed by insurance companies, compared with doctors in most of the other 10 countries studied — including Sweden and Britain.
Overall, Americans spend far more of their hard-earned money on health care than citizens of any other country, by a very wide margin. This means that it is in fact Americans who are getting a raw deal. Americans pay much more than people in other countries but do not get significantly better results.
The trouble with a free-market approach is that health care is an immensely complicated and expensive industry, in which the individual rarely has much actual market power. It is not like buying a consumer product, where choosing not to buy will not endanger one’s life. It’s also not like buying some other service tailored to individual demands, because for the most part we can’t predict our future health care needs.
The point of universal coverage is to pool risk, for the maximum benefit of the individual when he or she needs care. And the point of having the government manage this complicated service is not to take freedom away from the individual. The point is the opposite: to give people more freedom. Arranging health care is an overwhelming task, and having a specialized entity do the negotiating, regulating and perhaps even much of the providing is just vastly more efficient than forcing everyone to go it alone.
What passes for an American health care system today certainly has not made me feel freer. Having to arrange so many aspects of care myself, while also having to navigate the ever-changing maze of plans, prices and the scarcity of appointments available with good doctors in my network, has thrown me, along with huge numbers of Americans, into a state of constant stress. And I haven’t even been seriously sick or injured yet.
As a United States citizen now, I wish Americans could experience the freedom of knowing that the health care system will always be there for us regardless of our employment status. I wish we were free to assume that our doctors get paid a salary to look after our best interests, not to profit by generating billable tests and procedures. I want the freedom to know that the system will automatically take me and my family in, without my having to battle for care in my moment of weakness and need. That is real freedom.
So is the freedom of knowing that none of it will bankrupt us. That is the freedom I had back in Finland.
Here is my appeal to Republicans: If you really want to free Americans and unburden American employers, why not try, or at least seriously consider, some form of government-managed health care, like almost every other capitalist democracy? There are many ways of giving people choice and excellent care under government management. Universal publicly managed health coverage would even free America’s corporations and businesses to streamline their operations, releasing them from bureaucratic obligations that to me, coming from Finland, I have to say look weirdly socialist. Would this mean they would have to pay more in taxes? Possibly.
Many countries require employers and employees to contribute to the health care system through payroll taxes, more than the United States does. But again, Americans are paying far more for health care than anyone else, and America’s businesses are stuck managing this mess. It’s true that in countries with universal health care the cost of hiring a new employee can be significant, especially for a small employer. Yet these countries still have plenty of thriving businesses, with lower administrative burdens. It can be done."Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new Republican health plan would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 24 million people within a decade"
You seem to have forgotten that the majority of those people will be those that choose not to buy insurance. Is that because you don't like the idea of people making their own choices rather than the nanny state making them for them? Your post seems to indicate that, in general.
Your example of taxation is really hard to swallow, as Finland spends about 60% of it's GDP through government, compared to the US figures of about 1/3 of that. Hard to see how that is possible without massive taxation. Finlands taxes run as much as 50% of income...PLUS 24% sales tax and social security of 30%. Nor does that include such things as VAT tax, property tax, etc. - they have more taxes just as the US does. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland … e-tax-rate
But your suggestion of health care - if we want to provide everyone in the country with health care then the way to do it is through a tax funded program, locking Americans into higher taxes (not sure how that is "freeing" anyone). It is cheaper, but there are problems, with #1 perhaps being the millions out of work as insurance companies wither and die. #2 is likely (at least short term) the decrease in care that millions will see - while it may not be "necessarily so" that wait times go up it is certainly the common result of govt. care. There would also be the very real fear that care in general would fall to that provided by the VA, which is absolutely pitiful.
So there are problems to be overcome, but I do think it could be done, and I do think that "average" care would likely go up. Those with better care will scream, but isn't that always what happens with socialized programs? The rich lose, the poor gain from what the rich have lost?So Wilderness, do you believe the proposed Bill delivers "good coverage at much less cost" and "a much better health care plan at much less money" than the ACA?
If you do, how do you square that with what the CBO have said?
If you don't, how do you think it can be changed to provide greater coverage and better health care plans at less cost?"So Wilderness, do you believe the proposed Bill delivers "good coverage at much less cost" and "a much better health care plan at much less money" than the ACA? "
I do not. While the cost will go down, so will the care.
"If you do, how do you square that with what the CBO have said? "
As I read it, that's what the CBO said, too.
"If you don't, how do you think it can be changed to provide greater coverage and better health care plans at less cost?"
"But your suggestion of health care - if we want to provide everyone in the country with health care then the way to do it is through a tax funded program, locking Americans into higher taxes (not sure how that is "freeing" anyone)." Not a faux "insurance" program, designed to increase the bottom line of insurance companies - one in which the govt. picks up all costs and is paid for through increased taxes. Health care is owned and operated by government, and we all pray it doesn't become an expansion of the VA hospital/doctor system.Not sure what you're saying. Are you in support of health care system owned and operated by the government, funded through taxes?
If (IF) we decide to provide health care to all citizens, or to anyone else in the world, it seems the only reasonable choice. Bad enough that we decide to tax a person in order to give someone else what they want but cannot afford - to require those same taxes to provide profits for private industry goes far beyond even that.
Unfortunately, I would also predict that any such system will very quickly deteriorate far below what we already have as far as quality of care goes. The VA system, government owned and operated, is a good predictor of what govt. will do.I think you're right in that society needs to decide what it wants to do. Provide universal health care or no. I suspect those who oppose such a system do so on ideological grounds, rather than practical. That's why instead of trying to make decisions based on competing ideologies (capitalism, socialism, libertarianism etc) I think it would be better to solve problems through pragmatism.
Anyway, if universal healthcare system were the way to go, I don't think it would deteriorate as quickly as you think IF the things in Ralph's list at the beginning of the thread were addressed:
"inefficiency of hospital and other medical care facilities;
under-reliance on primary care doctors;
over-reliance on specialists who remind patients to continue making appointments as soon as they are eligible for insurance reimbursement whether needed or not or whether any issue could be dealt with by a primary care physician;
for profit medicine and laboratories;
over-prescribing of drugs;
monopoly pricing by pharmaceutical companies and huge amounts spent on television drug advertising and lobbying;
the ordering of unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests especially in cases where the testing facilities are owned by those ordering the tests".
Unfortunately people are so busy defending their favorite ". . . ism" these things don't get looked at. A real shame, and wasted opportunity.Oh, I think there are both ideological and practical reasons to deny universal health care. Just as there are both to require it.
But I'm afraid that I disagree pretty strongly with Ralph's set of "fixes" to make govt. provided health care a good system. Ralph would, for instance, deny recovery of R&D costs by pharma companies, pretty definitively denying product of new drugs. He forgets the masses of HMO and PPO plans that require a PCP (primary care physician) - after having one for years the insistence on the massive use of that physician is ridiculous, useless and mostly drives costs up, not down.
But the biggest complain is the one govt. run health care in the country - the VA. It's hard to visualize a poorer system anywhere in the world, or one more commonly abused by both patients AND government.I know there are arguments for and against, but I wish there was more emphasise on the practical rather than ideological. Being against a solution because it's "socialism" (or "capitalism") doesn't make sense. I think the criteria for choosing between competing solutions should be how well the solution meets the requirements.
I see what you're saying about pharma companies, but I think Ralph has a point. The consequences of a pharma company monopoly pricing a life-saving drug, are different to the consequences of an electronics company monopoly pricing a new type of personal device. Private companies have to recoup costs for sure, but because of the significance of the product they might have to recoup more slowly, or as Ralph suggests be not-for-profit.
Government services can be run efficiently, but it takes time, hard work and political will. I think there are plenty of people willing to invest time and hard-work, but the political will is lacking. I think one of the reasons it's lacking is because some people entrusted to make decision on behalf of society care more about defending some ideological ". . .ism" than they do about improving health care.
Ralph, I read your comments with interest. From your description of Finland’s healthcare it’s so very much similar to the healthcare we have in Britain; the NHS.
As a Brit it makes no difference to me what healthcare system America chooses, so I’ve got no invested interest in this debate.
However, as a Brit, I am bewildered why American’s seem to be so obsessive in wanting to pay $10,000 in healthcare insurance, and all the stress and worry that causes; especially (presumably) in old age when you can least afford to pay but will most likely need healthcare even more.
In Britain, it’s the employed that pay for the costs of the NHS through the taxes paid from their wage packet. Which to me seems a painless way to pay for it, and as far as I can tell (compared to America) it doesn’t put a great burden on tax payers; mainly because (as you indicated) it cuts out all the bureaucratic administrative costs of dealing with insurance companies, and it spreads the costs collectively, so those who can least afford to pay are still guaranteed full free health care at the point of use.
As you may know, in Britain, GPs (doctors), nurses and consultants are all government employees, and even the hospitals and ambulance service is government owned and run; which makes it even cheaper to run the service as it cuts out the additional costs of paying private profit making organisations.
To me, the great thing about the healthcare systems in Finland, Britain (and most of the rest of the world) is that it doesn’t matter who you are, how old or poor you are, or whether you have long term or chronic health problems, you can be sure of full healthcare without worrying about the costs.
This video sums up very accurately exactly what the British think of the American healthcare system: - https://youtu.be/cih8KbhJ4Js
Most of the richest 1% never worked a day in their lives. They are trust fund babies, and Daddy found a job or built a company so they could have an overpaid job like the rest of the family, and "not touch the principle."
I don't see it as ME taking money from someone needy, it's taking a percentage of what they don't need and others desperately do. When they are so rich they own 10 homes, they shouldn't even get Medicare, they can afford the most expensive health care. So, in actuality, the rich are living on the backs of the poor, and the declining middle class.
Medicare is awful, I must pay for two PARTS (in addition
to the various plans) in order to live somewhat comfortably. The tax rates have to change. I made a financial error from an insurance agent who I trusted when my husband died, and am actually in a 25% tax range, the same as Donald Trump. I am working with an organization who protects seniors from unscrupulous insurance agents, FINRA, and I have a very good case. The agent is pretending I still get my dead husband's salary. I expect to win.
You can't see the forest to the trees when it comes to this issue. I don't want to further argue it, except to wonder that you can't seem to see that the system is rigged in favor of the rich The so called '"choice" is not a choice at all. And why should someone have to give up their cell phone to buy health care? That's absurd. This generation doesn't even have a house phone, the cell phone is their only phone. Why can't you see how messed up that is? It's a lot of money for mediocre care.
And liberals aren't the gun lovers."So, in actuality, the rich are living on the backs of the poor, and the declining middle class."
And yet, somehow, they are the ones paying the bills while living off someone else. Just how does that work, anyway? They have already paid for their medicare, with many years of payments made - why in the world should they not get what they've paid for? Because they can afford to pay for it all over again? That doesn't make any sense at all!
"I don't see it as ME taking money from someone needy, it's taking a percentage of what they don't need and others desperately do."
Of course it's not you personally taking what belongs to another, but it is what you are advocating. But don't you find it just a tad bit disingenuous when it is also YOU that is deciding what they (the rich) need? It isn't your place to decide that, you know - it is their choice, for no matter how many times you indicate that what belongs to another person is open to being confiscated because they have more than you do it isn't true. The ethics behind such an attitude is astounding, and doubly so for someone complaining about the morality of it all.
Not understanding your medicare, though. I buy an "advantage" plan covering more than just medicare, plus drugs, but the only thing it costs me is that I have to join the HMO and put up with that crap. No money at all - it is free in that respect. Does medicare depend somehow on income? If so, I'm not aware of that provision at all, possibly because I have so little income.I get the usual Medicare in Parts A and B, but have other health issues and have to get Plans for things that Medicare doesn't cover, and for prescriptions. My last pain script cost me $180.00.
I just think if a person is so rich they are hiding their money in off shore accounts so they don't have to pay taxes on it (illegal) that they can afford to pay for their own medical care, they have money to do it. Yes, they worked for it. But if they must hide it to not pay taxes, I think they should forego it and let the cash they don't need go to an impoverished family. I do believe that's fair and just. Or at least if they paid the taxes they really owe, they should go into the US economy.
R's don't want to raise the minimum wage or pay women the same dollar amount for the same job. They want to turn the country back 50 years. And Trump is doing a terrible job, he's already insulted several world leaders. When he had enough money to pay for many properties, all he had to do is sit back, and tell other people to design and build whatever he wanted and put his name on it. He is not self made, his Father gave him about $5 mil to start a biz, and he screwed up several times, bailed out by his Dad each time. People like him don't have to plan every penny like we do.
He didn't realize how hard being the POTUS really is. Then he filled the swamp more by hiring people who have no knowledge of the agencies they are supposed to run or are religious nuts. He is a liar and isn't keeping his campaign promises, and is making us look like fools all over the world, accusing Obama of wiretapping, then insinuating he and Angela Merkel had that in common. She looked at him like he was crazy and didn't speak during their joint press conference.
And let Paul Ryan live at poverty level and decide if he wants a phone or life saving health help. If he wants to entertain himself with new economic plans, let him try it himself, not try it on a family of 4 who brings in income of $22,000.00 a year. All the cronies should have to live at poverty level before they spew this ridiculous stuff.
These people making Trumpcare are selfish scum who only want to hide their millions or billions. They would step over a dying person. Of course, they are all devout Christians. They are the biggest hypocrites, and I am not disingenuous. I'm not deciding what the rich need. They are deciding that the average family deserves to live in the gutter with nothing. But they have the best health care, even though they don't pay taxes on what they earn (or what's lying in their many accounts). Now that is disingenuous.Yes, I guess that I can see how medicare doesn't cover everything, and other plans might have to be purchased. While it's already paid for, it really isn't that good of an insurance plan. I sympathize with you on that, and hope I never have to face it myself; I covered the 10 grand last year, but there aren't that many more years like it left in the IRA and when it's gone there won't be much of a life, either. SS doesn't provide much.
Jean, we have a very different idea of what is ethical and what isn't. You're now saying that you would take other things (a pre-paid insurance plan) from someone that refuses to give you whatever you wish to take from them; will their house, car, or TV be next? It's almost incomprehensible to me that otherwise good and rational people will simply take whatever they wish from other people, claiming that because their cause is just that it justifies theft. Make no mistake that using political strength to pass a law making it legal does not make it ethical or right. I don't see my neighbor with something I want and try to take it, and whether he's rich or not I still won't do it - there is no difference when we decide to take from the rich to purchase things (in this case health insurance for a third person) we want but can't afford. It doesn't matter whether a house, a car, food or health care - it is immoral to steal IMO.
I fully agree that charity should be a part of our lives, and believe that I do my part to help others when needed although without a job there isn't much cash available any more and increasing age limits my physical activity as well. But I absolutely draw the line when it comes to forcing people to be charitable; I do not feel that I have the right to demand such a thing from anybody. A guiding light, IMO, is that old, old Golden Rule - possibly the only universal moral around - and until I'm OK with others taking whatever I have to use as they see fit, I haven't the right to do it to them regardless of how "just" I feel my cause might be. You obviously disagree, and we'll just have to agree that we feel differently there. Not surprising - it takes all kinds to fill a country the size of ours.
I'll only make one additional comment; to declare that Trump isn't self-made because he took starting capital of 5M (I heard it was 1M) and turned it into 1,000 times that amount is ridiculous. My parents helped me through college with $500 and I certainly don't have $500,000 to show for it. Such comments are simply more Trump bashing, nothing more - anyone that can increase a capital stake by a factor of 1,000 is certainly considered to be "self made".You keep saying I want to take tangible belongings from the rich. All I want is to see millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes, on the money they have hidden from the IRS. They should play by the same rules that we do, That's not forcing them to give up anything except their illegal behaviors.
We won't ever agree about Trump. At first, I thought if he surrounded himself with people who knew their areas of expertise, he would be OK. But he didn't do that, except in the case of most of the Generals. He just put more rich people in positions where many of them have no knowledge. He looks bewildered, and I think the news should stop covering his childish tweets.
These accusations of Obama wiretapping are ludicrous. Comey should step down. Trump looks bewildered much of the time, he's in way over his head. I think he is intelligent, and can only hope he realizes surrounding himself by friends isn't the smartest thing. They will keep telling you what you want to hear."You keep saying I want to take tangible belongings from the rich."
Dollar bills are tangible belongings. So is a paid for insurance policy. And you would take both.
"All I want is to see millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes, on the money they have hidden from the IRS."
Yes, but with "fair" being defined as a thousand times what anyone else has to pay. That can only be considered as "fair" by someone that has already decided that what others own actually belongs to them instead.
"They should play by the same rules that we do, That's not forcing them to give up anything except their illegal behaviors."
They do - you are free to use the same loopholes in the tax code that they do. And of course there is nothing illegal about it; if there were they would be fined heavily and possibly jailed. Unless you have proof hidden somewhere that they ARE committing crimes but have declined to give it to the IRS?
"We won't ever agree about Trump."
Probably not as far apart as you might think, but that isn't what I meant. We don't agree on basic ethical and moral principles, either.Once I am communicating with someone who feels a need to tear apart each sentence to the point what I wrote loses context, I stop. You are deliberately twisting my words, and I'm tired of being insulted by you. Don't you dare tell me I don't have ethics or morals. You don't personally know me, and when someone gets to this obsessed point of being mean spirited and deliberately trying to change the meaning of a person's post, it's not worth it.
"Don't you dare tell me I don't have ethics or morals."
Talk about twisting words! Here, let me quote what I said about your morals: "We don't agree on basic ethical and moral principles, either.". Now you can twist that if you wish, and into even "you have no morals" if you try hard enough, but it isn't what it says at all. Yes, there is word twisting going on, but it isn't by me!Hello Jean, I hope you don't mind me butting in, but I have been following your comments, and as a non-participant in this exchange, I think I can offer something for you to consider.
It appears to me that all, (at least almost all), of your points are personal emotion perceptions - ones you sincerely and passionately believe, (at least that is my perception). And you are as welcome to have them as any of us are to our own, but... beyond the reality of their truth to you - many of them don't stand the test of factual examination.
Wilderness, in my opinion, has done a good job of addressing the point I am making. From my non-participant 'outsider's' view, I only see him as 'attacking' some of the fallacies of your statements - not you personally.
Rather than feel attacked and 'parsed' - lay aside your emotional and personal perspectives commitment, and test your statements against his counter-views. Do your philosophical perspectives stand the factual test of reality?
GA
Jean, I note from your comments that you had to pay $180 for a prescription; which as a Brit I do find shocking, especially considering the huge out of pocket health insurance you must be paying (something which is alien to me).
Prescriptions is one of the few things we do have to pay for in Britain these days, introduced by the Conservatives (similar to your Republican Party) in the 1980s; but it’s only a nominal fee, and not everyone has to pay. As you will know, the NHS in Britain is government owned and paid for equitably from taxes on employees’ wages; the founding principle in 1948 (when it was set up by the Labour government) being ‘free for all at the point of use’.
However, during the 1980s the Conservative government introduced a few minor charges, but only to Prescriptions, Opticians, Dentistry and parking at hospitals; with all other healthcare being 100% free at the point of use.
Even then these are just minor charges, and they don’t apply to everyone. For example, a six monthly check up with your dentist on the NHS is only £18.80 (about $23); and if you need a full course of treatment (regardless to how much work is involved and how many times you have to go back) then the cost is fixed at £222.50 (about $275). However, if you’re under 19, on low pay, unemployed, pregnant or had a baby within the previous 12 months then all dental care is free.
As regards Prescriptions, in the UK it’s just £8.40 (about $10), or if you need regular Prescriptions then you can pay £29.10 (about $36) in advance for three months cover, which then covers you for all your Prescriptions regardless to how many you need; and then after the three months you can renew the cover if you still need it.
However, most people are exempt from NHS Prescription charges anyway. If you are under 18, over 60, on low pay, unemployed, pregnant or had a baby within the last 12 months, or have a long term or chronic medical condition e.g. diabetes, heart condition etc., all Prescriptions are free. In practice, only 6% of the British population have to pay for their Prescriptions.
I don’t know what the dental costs are in America, but I would be interested to know how it compares to the UK.
Dental treatment: entitlements and costs https://youtu.be/6L76CGhTYuYWilderness, forgive my ignorance, as a Brit I get confused as to your concept of theft from the wealthy. I assume you mean that you object to the rich paying more tax so that the poor can be given healthcare; healthcare that they couldn’t otherwise afford and healthcare which is now a basic human right in every modern industrialised country in the world except for America.
May I remind you that because of the American system the costs of running the healthcare service is the most expensive in the world e.g. 2.5 times more expensive than the British tax funded NHS per head of population.
Also, while I don’t know how the tax burden in the UK compares to the USA, it’s not as if the tax in Britain is crippling or that people struggle to survive because they can’t afford to pay their taxes. On the contrary, most British people have a relatively high standard of living, even the poor (which is a relative term) because of the welfare state and the minimum wage; now reclassified by the Conservatives to the ‘National Living Wage’ to reflect that it represents a ‘living standard’ rather than a subsistence standard.
The costs of running the NHS is $3,000 per head of population, compared to something like $7,500 per head of population in America. Therefore, I would have thought that if America switched to a system like in Finland, Britain (or any other industrialised country) then by cutting the costs of the for profit health insurance companies (as they cream off profits for their CEO and shareholders) that the savings could easily be absorbed into the existing taxes without adding much (if anything) to the taxes you already pay for Health Care. In fact some experts reckon it may even reduce the taxes you pay for healthcare.
In this respect, I’ve extracted the Government Spending for the UK and the USA for 2016 from their respective government websites; and it makes for an interesting comparison (copy below). For example, even though the NHS is funded from the taxes and provides free healthcare for all at the point of use the NHS is only 18% of Public Spending; compared to America where it’s a staggering 29% (reflecting how cost inefficient the current American healthcare system really is, considering what little benefit those taxes provide).
So it’s something you might want to look into as you get older and become more dependent on a greater need for healthcare while not having the means to pay for your health insurance because you no longer have the income?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0The great numbers being thrown around are always so far off , Obama Care is said to have added as little as 9 million newbies on health care rolls , far cry from the twenty five or whatever dream numbers Obama -Care claim , for one thing !
Kathleen , are liberals willing to pay double in premiums to pick up one more uninsured ?How are you doing, Ahorseback? It is nice to have a chance to greet you again.
I’ve read the CBO report on the AHCA and I have verified that Don W’s statements are accurate. What is the source of your claim "Obama Care is said to have added as little as 9 million newbies on health care rolls?"
It always amazed me that people raved about how wonderful healthcare was in the military. What a wonderful benefit it was. Well, it was - and is- socialized medicine. It had its failings, but generally it met your needs and cost you nothing. I always wondered why it was so great for the military family but not good enough for everybody else? And yes, I would pay more to help somebody else. No apologies.
Kathleen , To earn a service is one thing , as in the military , they were compensated in wages less than the mainstream population of work forces -- and earned a package of other bennies honorably , I came from a military family I know . To compare THAT with entitlements for everyone else is ludicrous. Conservatives lead the fifties , sixties , seventies by owning media , government and did it all by lies and deception . Liberal ideologies however are so phony today - While saying "It's the right thing to do for the needy " as to entitlements ,what they are really saying is "I want Free Stuff "
Admit it Kathleen !
I truly wish liberals would wage this entitlement war with HONESTY though , If they , you ,did that you would admit simply that "-I want My Free Stuff and I Don't care where it comes from -"
"It (military health care) had its failings, but generally it met your needs and cost you nothing."
Sounds exactly what one might expect to hear from employer provided insurance, doesn't it? Except for the "socialized" part; that an employer (the military) pays for it does not indicate socialism.
Of course the problem is that it DOES cost - that the beneficiary isn't paying that cost does not mean it is free.
It's not "free stuff" when in the long run it saves everybody the rising costs of healthcare. People with no insurance can't get treated for treatable conditions, so when they are dying they go to an ER and every possible effort is made, at tremendous cost, to save their life. By then it is too late. It would save all of us a great deal of money to treat people in the most inexpensive manner: early and preventative. (And you can leave off the !. Thanks)
And the military provides health care because it saves them the cost of providing insurance for its members. As in many other matters, it has led the way in testing social changes in our country and found the best solution to a problem.Yeaaa ,......, until you actually visit a VA hospital to see the reality !
I have and it's no worse than any other hospital. What we need to do to help veterans is give them the option of going out on the economy for treatment when there is an unreasonable wait time for appointments. There is insurance for that, with a co-pay.
That option Dose exist!
In its usual approach to 'To much bureaucracy' the VA added another layer of (you guessed it!) Bureaucracy!
So Now if you cant get in at the VA you call a number where they take incompetence to a Whole New Level!...Nearly redefining the word!
I had an urgent (noted on the order) heart stress test ordered and ended up waiting 60 days (after multiple attempts) just to get scheduled for the test a month after that!The unbelievable horror stories you hear Vets tell about their experiences at the VA are not only true,they're Understated!...and That IS What Govt health care Looks Like!...It's NOT something you want if you can help it!...though it Will fix the overpopulation problem in fairly short order (google the Phoenix VA scandal if you don't believe me)Did they give you the option to use TriCare insurance and go to a private cardiologist? That is what I did for my heart problem. I hope you get the care you deserve for your service.
you just get better god will see that you have tried your hardest and you know what keep going on you will get better
Jean: Good for you. There are some hubbers whose names drive me away from a discussion because I know it is going to dissolve into name-calling and personal insults. They lower the level of debate if not bringing it entirely to a halt. Good for you for standing up for yourself (and the rest of us.)
I fully agree with you Kathleen; yes Jean, good on you for standing up for yourself and the rest of us.
Yes I agree , After all , its only fair that those professing the ideology of the right be called to the carpet on questioning the moral and ethical standards allowed in political discussions . That , would never be something those on the left do constantly !..............NOT!
I think after the 3rd reading I got the drift of your comment, a horseback. Either side can state their opinion without being called on the carpet without insulting the other side. It's possible.
Thank you for the support, Kathleen and Nathanville. I am not that thin skinned, but am sick of being bullied. The person knows how far he can go without being kicked off the forum. He is derogatory and insulting, but doesn't come out and call anyone a name--he implies it all.
I'd stand up for you anytime!Seems like nobody gets kicked off forums anymore. Is HP doing its job?
A standard of name calling will get you in trouble the soonest.
Unless attacks are directed to you personally and not your ideas, making a case is difficult.
That's ok, advocating from my side of the political spectrum is going to attract opposition. I expect it and challenge them all to come out from the shadows. Your thoughts and ideas are appreciated, and I certainly don't want you to be 'run off'.
Sorry, Kathleen, this was addressed to Jean.Hello Kathleen, I hope you remember my comment that I always enjoy the opportunity to engage your comments. Boy, unless I misread the inference of your comment, I want to run through this door.
Following this thread, I can only see this comment - tagged to Jean's exchanges, as relative to Wilderness' replies.
Refusing to acquiesce to emotional but inaccurate declarations is not bullying. Repeatedly pointing out that philosophical and moral beliefs are not universal, (or reality-based), truths is not an action of insult.
I think HP is doing a good job of policing the forums. Personal insults, purposely insulting name-calling, (in the name of tolerance, I don't think of partisan labels like; snowflake, or Rightwingers, are personally insulting either - although, for me, "Libtard" might be a bit over the line), are a fair reason to be banned. And I can remember a participant or two that did suffer 'time-outs' for such violations.
But... I don't see anything in this thread's exchanges that pass that bar. It sounds to me like you are upset that there are non-choir members in the room.
GAGA,
I live my life through personal emotional perceptions, I'm a psychic. But I think a lot of what I say is factual, and what I see happening. I may be looking at it from a different perspective. That's not against the law.
But that doesn't mean every time I post, what I say is not based on what I've read or researched. And who decided that a certain person has to comment on everything I say? He's just towing the R line. You probably know the old expression, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." I have freedom to speak just as everyone else does.
I am not a scientist, and never claimed to be. I don't have to be right all the time. But I also don't deserve to be criticized every single time I post. That is inappropriate behavior from someone who feels superior to me, and I'm sick of it. I am a liberal Democrat on many issues, and know many people who agree with me on a lot of what I say. Donald Trump is a fool to be trying to dismantle NATO and saying Obama wiretapped him. Tillotson sp? is skipping a NATO meeting to go straight to China. Trump said he would try to get everyone covered in a health plan. His family has no reason to be in the White House. The list of what a mess he's made so far is long. The man is a liar.
I don't mind you butting in, you are generally polite and well mannered. But I don't really see why you had to involve yourself in this. I watch and listen to enough news and don't take hours each day to fact check each post on here, I come on during breaks in my freelance writing.
I had no intention of reporting anyone, I would gain no satisfaction from that.
Kathleen, HP doesn't monitor the forums anymore. If someone insults you by calling you a name, you can get them kicked off for 3 days. I'll just stay off because a certain person is making anyone on a thread who disagrees with his ideas miserable. He doesn't need to argue with EVERYONE who doesn't have his belief system (Whoops, forgive me, love of facts) or watch Fox News.
I have enough writing to do that pays well and doesn't subject me to aggravation or contradiction all the time.Hello again Jean,
I think we should just let things lay where they are. We are not going to make any progress. And I can't see any profit from restating wilderness' points to validate my point.
I don't presume any authority to condemn your philosophies or perspectives, but when you post them publicly, you certainly shouldn't presume them to be unchallengeable(sp?) Particularly the inaccurate factual parts, and the wildly inaccurate generalizations too.
GA. .GM
I don't see any "wildly inaccurate" statements. I based what I said on the people I see around me, the real problems they have with this administration, knowledge of current events I get from each news station (all are biased in their way) and magazines. The nature of forums is to express opinions. Of course, we don't all agree.
But it still remains the rich have more tax loopholes to help them save their hidden money, and don't declare all their income. I can't do that. I still think they don't need to be pampered in that way, and should own up to what they make. The government can use it to make a better health care system. Or do what it wants. But it's money hidden from the government, the reason many wealthy people don't admit they have cash hidden all over the world. It's just an idea, not even an opinion. But as a rich country with bad health care, it's not a bad idea. There are wealthy people who don't take SS because they don't need it; wealthy people.
But I feel you both have crossed a line of assuming everything you say is infallible, when its not.. Everything the two of you say isn't correct, it's your opinion. You just have one perspective and don't want to look at any other ones.
I'm happy to drop it.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
It would be perfectly fine with most Americans believing in the free market system IF , One , the whole Trump - Ryan Health Care did NOT pass through the legislative channels - Two , If Trump ultimately completely repeals the past Obama -American Health Care Act and let the brilliance of the free market resume the insuring of the insurable in America . Plus , add the regulating and even hyper regulating of said insurance companies for both reasonable profitability and coverage optimization .
It amazes me that any American wants the federal government to intervene and that the same government Can't run anything efficiently or profitably !When I broke my foot, my doctor was appalled I did not have insurance. So, to make him happy, I got insurance. Then he was happy. Then he retired. That was before Obama Care. Then I gave up my insurance because it doubled. I signed up Obama care to avoid paying the fine. I have had this forced insurance for a full year and I have never used it, as it covers only catastrophic. I wish I knew what my doctor's opinion of Obama care would have been.
Are (were) doctors happy with Obama care?
< Those who believe in the free market, (generally republicans/conservatives):
1. Do not require the Trump/Ryan Care Act to pass through legislative channels.
2. Want President Trump to repeal the Obama Care Act and restore the free market of private insurance companies.
3. Want (private) insurance companies to be REGULATED in order to:
a. Prevent them from obtaining unfair financial gain.
b. Optimize adequate/fair insurance coverage. >
Thank s ahorseback.
Q. Who will regulate insuance companies and and how will they be regulated?
We need to make some (new) laws?Kathryn , The importance of a good healthcare for all , is paramount but needs only to be regulated like the military or workplace safety , or for water quality . If a doctor or hospital can only charge a fixed or regulated cost for an X-ray or a broken toe then the overcharging ,over-insuring , over pricing of an entire system , is then controlled .
Not the subsidization of an over charging , underserving , incredible enriching system for an industry.
The system is a highly profiting system , it only needs regulating.
The Affordable Care Act did set a minimum standard of protections that very badly needed in this country. The issues I take with the law myself are there were no public option and that it did not go far enough especially in destroying the for profit model system in heathcare. The healthcare industry needs to be subsidized so it is available to all who need it. This new proposed legislation will only make things worse for the average person. This isn't about destroying Obama's legacy but rather protecting those vulnerable that are much better off with the law.
How does it help anything or anyone when the extreme profiteering is allowed to continue , in fact to continue -subsidized and unregulated , Obama care helps no one when all it does is raise the costs of healthcare overall . Cutting more and more people out of care .
Repeal , ditch Obama care with a highly regulated government oversight on existing health care .Obama Care is going to be fixed, not ditched.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/upsh … f=business
Republicans are in a bind. They’ve been promising to repeal Obamacare for seven years, and now, having won control of the White House and Congress, they must try to deliver. But while their bitter denunciations of the Affordable Care Act may have depressed its approval numbers, they haven’t made replacing it any easier.
On the contrary, the repeal-and-replace bill designed by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan has drawn withering criticism from the left and the right. Liberals condemn its use of reductions in health coverage for the poor to pay for large tax cuts for the wealthy, while conservatives bemoan its retention of many subsidies adopted under Obamacare.
In the end, the repeal effort’s biggest hurdle may be loss aversion, one of the most robust findings in behavioral science. As numerous studies have shown, the pain of losing something you already have is much greater than the pleasure of having gained it in the first place. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that Mr. Ryan’s American Health Care Act (A.H.C.A.) would cause more than 14 million people to lose coverage in the first year alone, with total losses rising to 24 million over the next decade. Many Republicans in Congress appear nervous about the political firestorm already provoked by the mere prospect of such losses.
Loss aversion actually threatens the repeal effort on two fronts: voters’ fear of losing their coverage, and lawmakers’ fear of losing their seats. Like the first fear, the second appears well grounded. Republican voters won’t be the only ones losing coverage, of course, but early studies suggest that losses may be concentrated among people who voted for President Trump. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated, for example, that the A.H.C.A. would cause premiums to rise more than sevenfold in 2026 for 64-year-olds making $26,500.
Continue reading the main story
Economic View
A column that explores life through an economic lens with leading economists and writers.
What if Sociologists Had as Much Influence as Economists?
MAR 17
What the President Could Learn From Professional Economists
MAR 10
State I.R.A. Plans Are Ready, if Congress Doesn’t Interfere
MAR 3
Economists Have Been Demoted in Washington. That’s a Bad Idea.
FEB 24
Why Trump’s 2-for-1 Rule on Regulations Is No Quick Fix
FEB 17
See More »
Recent Comments
S.Murphy 33 minutes ago
Although Medicare for all or Universal Care sound great, the reality under this administration is that it won't happen.Let's start then with...
Michael Treleaven 46 minutes ago
To my knowledge, no member of Congress has proposed that all House and Senate members should be denied access to the health care insurance...
KalamaMike 1 hour ago
Thank you for clearly defining why "free market enterprise" doesn't work with health care provision and purchases. My gripe for over thirty...
See All Comments Write a comment
If the repeal effort stalls, attention will shift to what comes next. In an earlier column, I suggested that Mr. Trump has the political leverage, which President Obama did not, to jettison the traditional Republican approach in favor of a form of the single-payer health care that most other countries use. According to Physicians for a National Health Program, an advocacy group, “Single-payer national health insurance, also known as ‘Medicare for all,’ is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.” Christopher Ruddy, a friend and adviser of the president, recently urged him to consider this option.
Many Republicans who want to diminish government’s role in health care view the single-payer approach with disdain. But Mr. Trump often seems to take pleasure in being unpredictable, and since he will offend people no matter which way he turns, he may want to consider why liberals and conservatives in many other countries have embraced the single-payer approach.
Part of the appeal of Medicare for all is that single-payer systems reduce financial incentives that generate waste and abuse. Mr. Ryan says that by relegating health care to private insurers, competition will lead to lower prices and higher quality. Economic theory tells us that this is a reasonable expectation when certain conditions are met. A crucial one is that buyers must be able to compare the quality of offerings of different sellers. In practice, however, people have little knowledge of the treatment options for the various maladies they might suffer, and policy language describing insurance coverage is notoriously complex and technical. Consumers simply cannot make informed quality comparisons in this industry.
Photo
Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, at a news conference this month. His bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act has drawn criticism from the right and the left. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times
In contrast, they can easily compare the prices charged by competing insurance companies. This asymmetry induces companies to compete for customers by highlighting the lower prices they’re able to offer if they cut costs by degrading the quality of their offerings. For example, it’s common for insurance companies to deny payment for procedures that their policies seem to cover. If policy holders complain loudly enough, they may eventually get reimbursed, but the money companies save by not paying others confers a decisive competitive advantage over rivals that don’t employ this tactic. Such haggling is uncommon under single-payer systems like Medicare (though it is sometimes employed by private insurers that supplement Medicare).
Consider, too, the mutually offsetting expenditures on competitive advertising and other promotional efforts of private insurers, which can exceed 15 percent of total revenue. Single-payer plans like Medicare spend nothing on competitive advertising (although here, also, we see such expenditures by supplemental insurers).
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of total operating expenditures, less than one-sixth of the rate estimated for the private insurance industry. This difference does not mean that private insurers are evil. It’s a simple consequence of a difference in the relevant economic incentives.
The Upshot
Get the best of The Upshot’s news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
American health care outlays per capita in 2015 were more than twice the average of those in the 35 advanced countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Yet despite that spending difference, the system in the United States delivers significantly less favorable outcomes on measures like longevity and the incidence of chronic illness.
But advertising expenses and administrative costs are not the most important reason the United States spends so much more. The main difference is that prices for medical services are so much lower in other countries. In France, for example, a magnetic resonance imaging exam costs $363, on average, compared with $1,121 in the United States; an appendectomy is $4,463 in France, versus $13,851 in America. These differences stem largely from the fact that single payers — which is to say, governments — are typically able to negotiate more favorable terms with service providers.
In short, Medicare for all could deliver quality care at much lower cost than private insurers do now. People would of course be free to supplement their public coverage with private insurance, as they now do in most other countries with single-payer systems, and as many older Americans do with Medicare.
As a candidate, Mr. Trump repeatedly promised that everyone in the country would be covered at reasonable cost under an amazing new health plan. But it’s now clear that the A.H.C.A. cannot deliver on that promise. The president, who has not always had a close relationship with Mr. Ryan, might consider breaking with him and working across party lines to develop support for universal access to Medicare.
Then again, he might fear that abandoning his public pledge to support Mr. Ryan’s bill would be seen as a sign of weakness or defeat. But the research findings on loss aversion make one thing clear: Any setback from abandoning the bill will pale in comparison to the outrage that will come if the A.H.C.A. actually becomes law.
Robert H. Frank is an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University. Twitter: @econnaturalist.What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.” Robert Heinlein,
Along with that concept is your own message: "In the end, the repeal effort’s biggest hurdle may be loss aversion, one of the most robust findings in behavioral science. " This is very true, and goes right along with Heinlein's thought. Even though most of those 14 million that will lose their insurance will lose it by choice and likely be happy about it, the fact remains that there are millions of voices from people that are now getting yet another "freebie" that they didn't have. And they don't want to lose it - that it would be a tough fight was inevitable, and more so after the ridiculous financial statement that were made about ObamaCare. Mostly false, and no one will believe any such forecasts again.Extending Medicare to the entire population in stages over five years or so beginning with children, the indigent and so forth is the best solution. This has been demonstrated in many other countries. Allowing medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies would be a helpful change. Also, hospitals badly need to become more efficient by applying modern management methods. Most of them are in the dark ages on cost controls. They simply pass their failures to control costs on to Medicare and private insurance companies. They would be well advised to study Toyota's lean production techniques.
https://hubpages.com/autos/The-Challeng … ld-EconomyI don't disagree about one payer. IF we are to provide for 320 million people...always remembering that Heinlein's statement is all too true.
Generic drugs are not the problem - patented drugs are. And it's kind of hard to negotiate for a life saving drug when there is only one supplier.
Sure, follow Toyota's lean production techniques. Arrange to have the quantity of blood on hand that will be needed, without knowing what will be needed. While I don't disagree that there are cost savings in hospitals, they won't be found by following techniques of manufacturing plants, and most of them will put patients at risk.
Suggesting that universal healthcare will bring about the fall of civilization is probably a bit of an exaggeration.
That's one of those ideological arguments I mentioned, and it's not very helpful in solving real problems.
<Health care should have certain regulations like military operations, workplace safety or water quality.
Doctors OR hospitals (both? or which?) should charge a fixed or regulated cost for, say, an X-ray, to prevent overcharging / over insuring individuals and over-pricing the entire system.>
How are doctors faring in all this today?
Does anyone care about the doctors who we rely so much on?
Are they crooks?
Are the hospitals crooks?
Are the insurance companies crooks?
Are the poor who can't afford to pay their share crooks?
Are the rich who gladly pay for their insurance and their health care crooks?
And who gets punished the most, as far as universal health care?
yes, the rich… who we hate so much.
well, the doctors don't hate the rich.
In the past, were doctors and hospitals over charging? If we universally regulate the amounts they charge would this be a better solution than universal health insurance?
And is this solution do-able? Maybe we wouldn't need insurance at all.
If we believed in survival of the fittest, we wouldn't have any issues or disagreements at all.
Rich vs Poor.
Here is the actual solution:
Pay as you go and if you can't pay, die, or find alternative/preventative, (truly healthy/natural,) health care.
- what is causing cancer?
- what is causing autism?
- what is causing thyroid problems, multiple sclerosis, etc. etc. etc.?Pay as you go and if you can't pay, die, or find alternative/preventative, (truly healthy/natural,) health care.
------
Is this truly your best recommendation?Fee Market Competition now ! I am glad that the Bill wasn't voted on Why let Trump assume the Failures and Blame of Clinton --Obama- Care program ,...............so he can take the BLAME for the failure of the last eight years ? No.....
Well, AH, what do you think?
Maybe it is just the 'fake news' but looks like Trump has got his first official pie in the face.
But, in all fairness to him, I have to give him credit for fighting to retain aspects of Obamacare like accepting patients with preconditions and the 26 year olds being allowed to remain under their parents policy. He would not compromise this, and I give him credit for at least that.
But with all the GOP party infighting and promised retribution by Ryan and Trump on the 'traitors' in the party, we Dems will take advantage of the carnage to raise our standard high above the fray.
.
As every other recommendation involves our (often unborn) children paying for our care, then dying themselves when the system crashes around their heads, what else is there? A single payer system, with lower expectations for care, doesn't seem in the works, after all.
So far , No western nation that has ever adopted government funded healthcare - has dropped it ! Or so I read the other day in some news program , I think Trump will now do it [ save it ] by tax reform - One more freebie of health care by subsidizing of other tax payers for the entitled !
I could see that - once the millions have a new entitlement paid for by someone else it's really hard to get it out of their greedy hands. Witness the "workfare" programs that were tried - they've nearly all died out by now. Taking the welfare entitlements away doesn't work when millions vote for them.
Perhaps, I just have difficulty believing that we cannot do better. Was the system that we were operating under prior to Obamacare so much more desirable? Are the Europeans really so barbaric (ineffective) and behind the United States because of their ideas of socialized medicine?
"Are the Europeans really so barbaric (ineffective) and behind the United States because of their ideas of socialized medicine?"
I don't see it as either "behind" OR "ahead" of the US. Just different. Of course, if one operates under the misbegotten idea that socialism is the perfect (or worst) social/financial structure one could claim either way, depending on the underlying assumptions.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Obama -Care increased uncovered Americans by provided insurance by about Nine million people , At the cost of underwriters leaving the system in many states What was so great about that ?
Remember ; When Obama -Care dies ............its still called Obama -Care !I pay Congressmen the big bucks to work out a compromise. That is what I expect them to do, find the third alternative.
The man who gave you Obama --CARE is actually a guy named Obama . Blame him for its obvious implosion .
I was surprised by the glaring gap between my long-time colleague’s statement and the well documented, widely accepted numbers published by many credible sources that are qualified to arrive at a realistic estimate. This led me to ask for a source for this dubious assertion.I was disappointed by the lack of a response. Disappointed but not surprise!
Now this totally unsupported claim appears again in this thread: So, my forum mate who claims to know how many Americans became newly insured following the enactment of the ACA has tacitly declined to show us why the claim of 9 million should be believed. In fact, in the absence of a reliable source, it should not be considered reliable at all.
For those readers unwilling to believe the unsupported 9 million newly insured claim without insisting on a verifiable source, here are a few reliable and fully documented sources that put the number around 20 million as of a year ago.
“This issue brief reviews the most recent survey and administrative information available about
gains in health insurance coverage since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. We estimate that the provisions of the ACA have resulted in gains in health insurance coverage for 20.0 million adults through early 2016 (through February 22, 2016), a 2.4 million
increase since our previous estimate in September 2015.”{1}
~ Department of Health and Human Services, March 3, 2016
In addition, Forbes Magazine, hardly a staunch supporter of the ACA, spoke about the numbers of newly insured going back to several months earlier:
“Goldman Sachs estimates that total coverage under the ACA increased by 13 to 14 million last year and may have increased by another 4 million during the first five months of 2015, for a total coverage increase of 17 to 18 million combined. At a top line, this coincides with the figure from RAND, which estimated that there were 22.8 million newly insured people since the launch of the ACA."{2}
Do you have a source for “9 million newbies?”
{1} https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/1 … 0-2016.pdf
{2} https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottl … 25ca1c788a
In reforming health care in the US, we need to make sure that reimbursement rates for physicians, hospitals, and outpatient testing facilities are HIGHER than they are now. Otherwise, quality of care suffers greatly and wait times for diagnosis and treatment increase. It's true. I've seen it myself while living in Canada, the UK, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Access to health care means nothing if a person can't get the quality of care they need to get well!MarieRogers, you obviously didn’t live in the UK long if your impression of our NHS is that it’s “Quality of Care Suffers Greatly”.
As a Brit, who enjoys the benefits of the NHS, which is free at the point of use for all UK residents: -
• If I woke up one morning and thought I had tonsillitis I could see my GP the same day, have it confirmed on the spot whether it’s a virus or a bacterial infection, and if it did turn out to be tonsillitis be given a prescription for penicillin; which would cost me nothing because I’m over 60. If I was younger and in employment the prescription would only be £8.40 (about $10).
• If I sprained an ankle I go to one of the walk in centres and get it immediately seen to (a free service to all UK residents).
• If I didn’t feel well, grazed my knee, got a splinter in my finger or broke my arm I could take myself to ‘A&E’ (Accident and Emergency) and be checked over and treated within 4 hours (a free service to all UK residents).
• If I didn’t feel well or just wanted advice I could make a free phone call to 111 (free non-emergency medical service); who would give me whatever advice I wanted, or make diagnosis over the phone by asking me specific questions; and then give me advice and who I should see for further help if required e.g. GP. If during the course of the phone conversation they determine it’s a medical emergency they will call an ambulance on your behalf.
• If I (like any other UK citizen, regardless to how rich or poor, or young or old, they are) end up with a chronic or long term illness, then I will get full and free medical care for the rest of my like.
According to the World Health Organisation (you can check figures on Wikipedia) the average life expectancy in 2015, in the UK is 81.2 years; compared to 79.3 years in the USA; which of course the quality of healthcare will play a major role.
The only point you are correct on is that wait times for a proper diagnosis and full treatment is longer; if it’s a medical condition that a GP can’t deal with e.g. if you need an operation, or need to see a Consultant or Specialist; provided it’s not urgent or life threatening. In an emergency you will be rushed to hospital and treated immediately. Currently, the waiting list in the UK to see a Consultant or Specialist is 18 weeks; but as your treatment is completely free I think it’s a worthwhile compromise.
• To have a baby on the NHS is completely free.
• Cancer treatment and any drugs you need to take to treat the cancer are all completely free on the NHS.
The NHS may not be perfect; but its comprehensive and because it cuts out the costs of ‘private money grabbing insurance companies’, and it’s GPs, doctors and nurses are Government Employees and over half of Consultants work for the government part time, and the hospitals and Ambulance service are owned by the government, it’s a lot cheaper to the tax payer than the system in the USA e.g. $3,000 per head of population, compared to $7,500 per head of population in America.
We Brits love our NHS, it’s the nearest thing we have to a religion; as this video clearly explains: - https://youtu.be/bDdZCv5v2Rg"Currently, the waiting list in the UK to see a Consultant or Specialist is 18 weeks"
I tend to think this would be a complete deal breaker to Americans. Few will wait even 4 weeks, let alone 4 months.Hi wilderness, I guess that’s the difference between British and American attitudes.
I for one would rather wait a few months for major non-urgent treatment that requires seeing a Consultant, when it’s FREE; and use the $10,000s saved on luxury items such as holidays, latest home entertainment equipment for the home, or home improvement etc.
When my wife went to her GP with severe back pain she had to wait over 4 months to get the course of treatment she needed from a physiotherapist; although while waiting for the appointment her GP prescribed a course of painkillers.
It was a worthwhile wait because physiotherapy on the NHS takes a holistic approach to the treatment e.g. as well as the six months physiotherapy treatment she needed, as part of the course she was given a check list of 5 areas where she could help herself for the future; including comprehensive training on the specific exercises she needs to do to help with her back condition, and a comprehensive diet sheet highlighting the foods that are beneficial to her condition and those foods that are unhelpful.
And of course the whole treatment (and advice) was completely FREE; the $1,000s we saved by not having to pay anything for the treatment (and not having to pay any medical insurance) because it’s all paid for by taxes, meant that we had the money (which we wouldn’t otherwise have had) for me to spend about $7,000 on building materials to build the conservatory she always wanted.
Since then, because she now has a back condition (which is now relatively pain free since the physiotherapy), as well as her income (she now works part time) she now qualifies for PIP (Personal Independence Payment), which is where the government pays her £2,886 ($3,582) per year; and because she gets PIP, and as I’m now the househusband who looks after her for more than 35 hours per week, on top of my works pension I now get the ‘Carers Allowance’ from the government, which is £3,255 ($4,040) per year.
A close friend of mine went to his GP in January with a bad foot, he was put on a course of pain killers and referred to a Specialist who he saw last month, and following that consultation an operation has been arranged for the end of April to operate on the blood flow behind his knee (which is where the problem is). He’s not on a high income, so he wouldn’t be able to afford any medical insurance (if we had that system in the UK), and he certainly couldn’t afford to pay for the treatment himself. So again, he’s more than grateful that the whole service is FREE.Perhaps the worst part of the whole thing is that it is not FREE. There are no doctors working for FREE, no FREE nurses and even the janitor in the hospital is not FREE. The drugs you take are not FREE, and the equipment used by the hospital or injured isn't either; somebody is being paid to produce the drugs, the CAT scanner and the artificial leg. You and your fellow Brits pay a high sum for the service, whether you like to pretend it is FREE or not.
It's indeed all about attitudes.Wilderness, before I address your points; first some comparative costings. From various sources on the web I’ve seen figures banded around stating the healthcare in the USA is over 2.5 times more expensive per person than the cost of the NHS in the UK.
Being the nerd and geek I am, I gathered my own data from reliable sources, and done my own calculations (as shown below). My calculations are broadly in line with figures I've seen quoted on line, albeit mine seem to be a bit higher e.g. I make it 3.8 rather than 2.5; either way the message is similar.
UK population 2015 = 64,715,810
USA Population 2015 = 321,773,631
[source: worldometers]
UK Health Care Budget:-
2015 £134.1 billion: -
UK Healthcare Budget (NHS) for 2015 divided by UK population as at 2015 (£134.1 billion divided by 64,715,810 people) = £2,072 ($2,578) per person.
USA Health Care:-
According to the CMS the National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE) was projected to hit $3.207 trillion in 2015. The U.S. Population at that time was (according to the CMS) hovering at around 320 million, so 2015 looked to be the first year healthcare spending would reach $10,000 per person.
USA population is just a little under 5 times larger than the UK population, so if the USA had the same efficiency in Healthcare costs as the UK then the NHE should be nearer to 5 x £134.1 billion = £670.5 billion ($834 billion) and not the $3.207 trillion quoted above by the CMS for NHE in 2015; which is 3.8 times per person than it was for the whole of the NHS budget per person for the same year.
Alternative calculation, using the same above figures; take the $10,000 per person that it costs in the USA in 2015 (according to the CMS figures) and divide that by the $2,578 per person the NHS costs in the UK in 2015 = 3.8 more expensive for health care in the USA in comparison to the NHS budget for the same year.Yes, Americans pay more for their health care. Of course, they get more for it, too, although I would not argue that the better care is equal to the higher cost.
None of which has a thing to do with trying to put over that the NHS is FREE, for it certainly is not. Nor am I positive even the figures you give are actually accurate; in talking to an Aussie a while back (with the equivalent of NHS) it came up that doctors salaries are much lower than in the US...but that they don't pay for their years of schooling, their clinics, their malpractice insurance, or much of anything else, either. All that is paid for by govt...but not included in such figures as you are giving. Haven't a clue if that is similar to the UK, but would bet my bottom dollar there is more cost than what you are including. On the other hand, what Americans pay in doctor fees, clinic fees, hospital fees, emergency transportation fees and drugs just about covers all of it. Easy enough to put together. It really is quite difficult to accurately compare costs when govt. sticks it's hand into the matter and many of those costs simply "disappear".Wilderness, you are missing the point: The NHS is free AT THE POINT of USE e.g. there are no co-pays or other additional expenses to use the NHS (it’s all paid for through the taxes).
The NHS in England deals with over 1 million patients every 36 hours. It employs more than 1.5 million people; of those, the clinically qualified staff include 150,273 doctors, 40,584 general practitioners (GPs), 314,966 nurses and health visitors, 18,862 ambulance staff, and 111,127 hospital and community health service (HCHS) medical and dental staff.
In answer to your question about doctor training; in the UK if you want to become a doctor:-
• In the first instance you need to study medicine at university for five or six years to get your Degrees, obviously at your own expense.
• Then you need to do two years foundation training in hospitals (these are called junior doctors); and their wages are paid for out of the NHS Budget.
• Then you need to spend a further three years training to become a GP, or five to eight years training if you want to become a Consultant or Specialist. At this point all the training costs and wages come from the NHS budget.
Once you’ve completed your training and you’re a fully qualified GP, the NHS expects you to work for them for at least four years because of the investment costs the NHS has put into you.
Yes, in fact all NHS costs are actually included in the NHS Budget; because the Government doesn’t manage any of the running of the NHS directly, it has an hands off approach e.g. the Government gives the budget to the NHS for the NHS to cover all their costs in running the organisation; just like any private business would need to budget to cover all its costs.
The website for further information is: - http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/abo … rview.aspxBut that's the point - it isn't "obvious" that students pay their own college. But something else occurs to me - have you included the cost of those private hospitals, and the doctors that work there? Who pays ambulance fees, whether air or ground? Is drug research subsidized, and who pays for those drugs when used (are pharmacies NHS, private or both)? Are hospital utility costs included, or is it free from the government? Who builds the hospitals?
Point is that there are an enormous number of costs, not all of which are paid for by the NHS.Hi wilderness, yes the cost of private hospitals (which includes all services they provide to the NHS) is commissioned from the NHS and therefore the costs comes out of the NHS budget.
The part of the NHS organisation responsible for commissioning services from private hospitals is called the ‘Clinical Commissioning Groups’ (CCG).
The CCGs are supported by:-
• The ‘Commissioning Support Units’ who provide technical support, crunch data, contract negotiations e.g. with private hospitals, and technical contract management, and
• Clinical Senates, made up of a whole range of NHS medical professions who offer advice to CCGs in specialised areas.
There are no ambulance fees; the Ambulance Service is an NHS Trust, like the NHS Hospitals e.g. NHS Trusts (Ambulance, Hospital, Mental Health, and Community Health) are all public sector organisations (government organisations) that are part of the NHS. The Government gives the NHS England the full £140 billion, and then NHS England subdivides the money to all the NHS Trusts (and elsewhere as required), throughout the whole of the NHS organisation; each NHS Trust is then responsible for its own part of the budget.
Drug research is an interesting one. There are 32 Medical Universities in the UK, although other universities also do medical research, Cancer Research UK (a registered charity) is one of the world leading cancer research organisations who have made great advancements in cancer research. Along with other public and private bodies, the NHS also funds research and trials of new drugs. It’s an area of shared interest and responsibility.
Following any trials; for the NHS to buy NEW drugs it has to get permission from NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). NICE is a separate independent government organisation (that’s not part of the NHS). NICE main role is to negotiate prices with the drug companies; and it’s a tough negotiator. If it doesn’t get the price it wants it will look for cheaper alternatives that give similar results. Only on rare occasions, when it’s proven that a new drug is exceptionally effective (and there are no alternatives that give similar results) will NICE consider paying premium prices for it; if enough pressure is put on NICE from other organisations.
It’s one area where the NHS does save a lot of money e.g. rather than wading in an paying premium prices as soon as a new drug comes out, NICE will usually wait a year or two to see how effective it really is, and for the price to drop significantly.
Pharmacies are private e.g. they sell everything from toothbrushes, to hair brushes, cosmetics etc. However, each Pharmacy has to have a fully qualified pharmacist on duty at all times. The pharmacist, who works for the NHS, has to be registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council (an independent government organisation). To qualify as a pharmacist you have to pass the four year Master’s Degree in Pharmacy at University.
The Pharmacists role is separate to the pharmacies e.g. the pharmacist is qualified to give medical advice to the public in relation to drugs, and provide other NHS duties e.g. take your blood pressure if asked, etc., and he or she is ultimately responsible for issuing the prescription drugs. As I’ve said before, all Prescriptions are about $10, but most people are exempt from paying the Prescription e.g. those under 18, over 60, pregnant, on low pay, unemployed or have a long term or chronic illness.
Any money the pharmacy collects for prescriptions are paid to the NHS, but then the NHS has to pay the pharmacy for the value of the drugs they’ve given on prescription (which for some drugs can be quite expensive); so it all has to be accounted for.
On your last point, NHS Hospitals are part of the NHS, and funded by the NHS (as explained above).
You’ve asked some really good questions on what is quite a complex subject. For simplicity, I might have not worded some of my reply in the most accurate way. This video attempts to cover the complexities of the NHS funding; and it might answer some of the questions better than I did:-
https://youtu.be/8CSp6HsQVtwWait. If the cost of private hospitals comes from NHS then what are the customers paying for? That doesn't make sense. Or are we talking different things - I referred to those hospitals that require payment from the customer, not the NHS.
Our pharmacies are similar, but I meant only the pharmacy department of that store, if that makes sense. Only the workers that sell the drugs from the store - cashiers, store stockers, janitorial staff don't count. So you have it right - the pharmacy is NHS.
LOL "complex" isn't the word - like the US the whole thing is about as complicated an industry as it can get.Hi wilderness, yes I think we are talking about different things. It's a difficult question to answer, as no single, definitive figure has been published. However, I did find some useful data published by the ‘King’s Fund’ in 2014.
The King's Fund is a reputable and highly respected independent charity working to improve health and care in England, founded by the Prince of Wales in 1897. Initially to help London’s voluntary hospitals, but these days they concentrate on research and policy analysis, and work with individuals, organisations and communities to better educate and inform; with their ‘vision’ being ‘that the best possible health and care is available to all in England’.
In reading their report, they make it clear that the 11% that is often banded around as the percentage of the UK population having some form of private medical care insurance is misleading in that the vast bulk of those insurances (which are usually paid for by company schemes) are not comprehensive but just cover trivial matters; and tend not to get used anyway.
In their own words the King’s Fund state in their report:-
• There is no good published data that allows the extent of these various levels of cover to be analysed. But it is clear that nothing like 11 per cent of the United Kingdom has what might be described as comprehensive private medical insurance.
Although, from their research the King’s Fund is certain in its own mind that private medical insurance has been in decline in the UK since 2006, with the number of policy holders falling year-on-year.
I’ve extracted all the data published in their report, which covers private healthcare spending for 2011 (when the NHS budget was £119.8 billion), the details are as follows: -
In 2011, private hospitals in the UK earned £6.42 billion, from the following sources:-
• Private Acute Hospital Sector = £4.14 billion (64.49%)
• Income from the NHS (for patient care) = £482 million (7.5%)
• Income from the NHS for Specialist Fees = £1.59 billion (24.77%)
• Private screening = £135 million (2.1%)
• Pregnancy terminations = £73 million (1.14%)
2.8% of private hospital revenue in the UK came from overseas patients.
The £6.42 billion income by the private hospitals is just 5% of the total health costs in the UK (the other 95% being the NHS), albeit 32.27% of that 5% was income earned by the private hospitals from the NHS.
LOL, I agree the NHS is as complicated as an industry can get, but it’s something the British is good at, and the main thing is that it works; even if it does do your head in trying to understand it.
Hi wilderness, if you read my other posts in this forum, you will have noted that frequently quality my statement by stressing that:-
“The NHS is free (to all) AT THE POINT OF USE” e.g. paid for through the taxes (and with few minor exceptions), no ‘co-pays’. The main exceptions being nominal dental charges and prescriptions being only about $10 (and even then most UK residents are exempt from paying the prescription charges anyway).
The big advantages from the British point of view of paying for the NHS through our taxes are that:-
• Everyone is automatically entitled to full healthcare regardless,
• We don’t have to worry about whether we can afford medical insurance; because the costs of the NHS is paid for through the taxes, and
• No one has to worry about whether they can afford medical treatment, because it’s free at the point of use.
All in all, it takes the worry and stress away from people on how they are going to cover their medical bills because it’s all paid for by the Government. Albeit the Government doesn’t pay direly; they allocate a budget to the NHS, and the NHS administers the spending, which includes the wages for doctors and nurses, and the janitor and cleaning staff, and the costs of running the hospitals, getting equipment, supplies and buying the drugs etc.
As regards costs; I don’t think we ‘Brits pay a high sum for the services’ as you quoted; when the NHS costs are compared to the National Healthcare Expenditure in the USA (according to figures published by the CSM) e.g. $2,578 per person in the UK compared to $10,000 per person in the USA (based on 2015 figures).
If you want further information, then this video has some useful comparisons: - https://youtu.be/qMNuxPByEW0I agree - the British would rather put the responsibility for their health care on the govt. (termed the "nanny state" in the US) rather than shoulder the responsibility for themselves. No argument there - I even pointed it out. It's a difference in attitude, just as I said, and it is one becoming ever more prominent and common in the US as well. Perhaps a lot of it is the newness of this country; when one climbs into a covered wagon to cross 2,000 miles of open country and then sets up a home without any help from anyone else, it tends to hang on for a few generations. Those times ended in the UK a thousand years ago or more, but my grandmother was one of the pioneers building a life for herself over here. Only 2 generations ago.
Yep, I agree with you wilderness, Britain is a bit of a ‘nanny state’ (a term that is commonly used in the UK as well). It can be a bit of a pain at times when the government appears to be over-protective; but then on the other hand it is for our own good, it can enhance the quality of our life and it does save lives.
I think it all started mainly in the latter part of the Victorian period, when more Liberal minded people started pushing for social reforms, which were dramatically enhanced after the Socialist Labour party had their landslide victory in 1945; and within just three years had set up the NHS and the welfare state. So today, on the plus side, we have generous working conditions e.g. legal minimum of 5.6 weeks paid annual leave a year (although most large companies make it up to six weeks), the National Minimum Wage (for under 25s) and the National Living Wage (legal minimum wage for over 25s). For pregnancy, a mother is entitled to 52 week maternity leave with full pay, and the father is entitled to up to two weeks Paternity leave with pay.
On the more irritating side are the strict health and safety laws; but then again they do save lives, so we can’t really complain too much e.g. in comparison to France (where we go for two weeks holiday each year) public events are always fenced or roped off so you can only watch from a distance (for your safety), whereas in France they don’t often bother fencing off events so you can get really close to the action.
Also, food is heavily regulated for safety in the UK, so many toxins that are commonly found in American foods are banned in Britain; which I feel is a good thing, as this video demonstrates:- https://youtu.be/oEh1IbOKRBo
Although one area where Britain is relaxed is in the drinking age; in the UK the minimum age you can buy alcohol is 18, but you can drink wine, beer or cider from the age of 16 in public if it’s with a meal and someone 18 or over buys the drink for you. Also, under English law, children from the age of 5 can legally drink at home; which stems from the tradition of children sitting at the dining table during special occasions e.g. Christmas, Easter, and having a small glass of wine in celebration with the adults."it is for our own good"
Now that's a term that has been used more than a few times throughout history!
Yes, we saw that drinking thing when we visited. The amount of alcohol apparently consumed on a day to day basis was staggering to us. We visited mostly pubs for our meals and just weren't prepared for that - we seemed real odd balls not to have a bottle at dinner in the motels.
But overall, I'm a proponent of as little regulation as possible - something that just doesn't fit into European life. Some things seem obvious to me - clean restaurants for instance - but a good deal of what is regulated even in the US is not the business of government but instead personal choice.Yep, wilderness, as a European I do feel a lot more comfortable and safer with things (in general) being heavily regulated by government; and although it can be a pain at times, I would feel very uncomfortable if the government didn’t regulate.
The numbers of regulatory authorities in the UK are as follows:-
• 3 for Charities
• 3 for Education
• 4 for The Environment
• 6 for Finance
• 15 for Health
• 7 for Law
• 4 for Social Care
• 2 for Transport
• 7 for Utilities
• 20 for ‘Others’ e.g. the ‘Advertising Standards Authority’, the ‘British Board of Film Censors’ and ‘Citizens Advice’.
Although most are ‘independent government organisations’, some are independent organisations founded by industry itself (to self-regulate), or charities.
Citizens Advice, a charity (founded in 1939), now have offices in every city and town across the UK and employ 7,000 staff who work with 21,600 volunteers. They provide free advice to anyone who is confused about the law or want to know what their legal rights are.
The ‘British Board of Film Censors’ and ‘Advertising Standards Authority’ are self-regulatory bodies. The ‘Advertising Standards Authority’ (established in 1962 and funded by the media) is highly respected and has strict standards on advertising in the UK. No newspaper or TV channel will run an advert unless it has approval from the ASA (albeit the ASA rubber stamps approval from reputable advertisers who can be trusted). For an advert to be published in the UK it has to be legal, decent, honest and truthful; and any that are not are automatically refused or withdrawn by the ASA.
An independent government organisation is essentially a government department set up and financed by the government, but to ensure independence e.g. to prevent interference by the government, they are answerable only to Parliament.
The ‘Food Standards Agency’ created in 2001, and the ‘Health and Safety Executive’ created in 1974 are two prime examples of independent government organisation that have a major impact on everyday life in the UK.
The Health and Safety Executive is very much a part of the ‘nanny state’, but the Food Standards Agency does play a major role in making food safer and healthier e.g. to ensure quality of source, and to ensure food isn’t contaminated with toxins; many of which are found in many artificial preservatives, flavourings and colouring. To help ensure British food is as safe as it can be the Food Standards Agency uses the European ‘E’ numbering system as an easy guide to safety in food.
The E system is explained in detail in this video: - https://youtu.be/Nz0lR5A-p5E
Hi wilderness, although attitudes in Britain is different to American attitudes e.g. we like the FREE NHS, there are private hospitals in the UK if anyone wanted to use them; but the vast bulk of people, including most wealthy people, prefer to use the NHS.
Private hospitals make up about 10% of medical care in the UK. Half of Consultants and Specialists work fulltime for the NHS, and the other half work part time for the NHS and part time for the private hospitals.
The biggest customer of private hospitals in the UK is the NHS. If the NHS has a patient that they don’t currently have the ‘Resources’ to treat then the NHS will commission those resources from the private hospitals (using tax payers money).
This arrangement stems back to the foundation of the NHS back in 1948. At the time there was fierce opposition from doctors and Consultants. Few were willing to sign up to the new NHS. To resolve the opposition, the Socialist Labour Government made a deal with the Consultants that if they agreed to work for the NHS part time they would be allowed to also continue with their private practice part-time; a compromise for the Government but a win-win for the Consultants.
Once the Consultants were on-board a few of the doctor practices started to sign-up to the NHS. The other doctors then quickly realised that they would lose their patients to any NHS doctor practice in their area. In order to keep from losing their patients to NHS practices (which would offer a free service) all the other doctor practices started to sign-up to the NHS; a domino effect; and within less than a month the Government had the whole medical practice throughout the whole of the UK on-board for the new NHS.
And 70 years on; the rest is history.
"The Trump administration will face an early test in how it handles a lawsuit the House filed against the Obama administration, which the new president’s team inherited. If Congress refuses to back down or the Justice Department fails to continue fighting the suit, the result would be the loss of subsidies that help millions of low-income people pay out-of-pocket health costs. Withdrawing this support would cause insurers to flee Obamacare markets, leading to massive coverage losses. Cooperation between Congress and the White House could easily solve this problem, but Republicans would have to agree to bolster an element of a law they have for years hysterically condemned." Washington Post Editorial Board
Related Discussions
- 26
What would you have done to improve American health care?
by Education Answer 11 years ago
If you were able to abolish Obamacare, what would you do to improve our current health care system?Democrats are keen to say that our system doesn’t work, that our life expectancy is short compared to other first-world countries, our health care is expensive, people with pre-existing conditions...
- 23
American Health Care Debate
by L. Andrew Marr 15 years ago
Andrew, thats the problem with Obama's plan...it's not free.We would still pay for insurance. It's not a universal plan like in Europe.17 million Americans still won't have medical coverage with Obama's plan.If Obama wanted to make it universal and raise our taxes to get it, I'm all for...
- 44
Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die
by Stacie L 13 years ago
Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to dieBy Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was...
- 6
The uninsured health policy
by James Dubreze 15 years ago
It is true that you are what you eat ….so if you eat garbage you'll become garbage. Maybe I'm a little too upfront with my language but nonetheless the truth remains, what you put in your body does effect your genetic makeup. Here in the United State our eating habits are shaped by Television...
- 79
Will you be shopping for health insurance in your state's exchange?
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...
- 40
"Obama APPEALS for public support on health care": Yahoo!
by fishskinfreak2008 14 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_ … h_overhaul"President Barack Obama accused insurance companies of placing profits over people and said Republicans ignored long-festering problems when they held power as he sought to build support Monday for swift passage of...