National healthcare moves forward. Three cheers for more govt continue.

[Guest thorn]

I've got to disagree that it's the "main cause of the rise in healthcare costs since it's inception." How do you justify that statement?

It may be justifiable if you look at Agents, brokers, general agents, lawyers, lobbyist, and consultants. Tort Reform?

[leroy]

I'm against the government getting involved, but I do think something needs to be done. For one thing, we need to let our loved ones die sooner. ..... But some of you far right folks might want to think carefully about what it's like to be in someone's shoes who can't afford insurance of any kind. Those people are not all deadbeats living off your tax dollars, using green stamps for steak. Some of them are doing the very best they can while their kids are crying from hunger or lack of medical attention. Take a few steps in their shoes before you get all high and mighty, pontificating with bumper sticker nonsense built on over simplification.

More than one-freakin-third of Americans are uninsured. I don't have the solution, but there is something wrong and we ought to fix it. I don't think the idiot politicians are the solution, unfortunately, especially since they have healthcare for life. Gawd, that makes me mad.

Sorry for the impassioned rant. I'm feeling better already!

David:

It's a sad fact that everyone will not ever have everything that everyone else has. They are all created in God's image and of equal value in His eyes, but they dont stay that way very long. Government intervention in anything never solves the problem of "equality". There are many competing views of what "equality" is.

I am old enough to remember when no one had insurance (im 62). They simply went to the doctor when they felt they needed to, and paid their bills. We have promoted the idea in this country that everyone should have access to everything they want, no matter whether they can pay for it or not. I have been part of the "uninsured poor". My (and my parent's) solution was to make hard decisions. One of them happened to be not to go to the doctor or the hospital unless it was imperative to do so.

The fact is that insurance is not a "right"; it is a priviledge that you purchase if you are affluent enough to do so. This truth is not taught much anymore; because folks simply dont think about it. I am of a firm mind that if insurance payments were made to the individual and then to the doctor; costs would go down due to the shock factor of the costs involved.

I agree that something needs to be done, but i am absolutely convinced that it is not wat government wants to do to buy votes.

By they way i am, in fact, a "far right folk(s)"; I wear it like a badge of honor. My advice is that you need to be too. If you want to help others; do it on thru your own benelovence (the church, doctors, and hospitals used to do it -- don't call on government to do it.).

More than one-freakin-third of Americans are uninsured.

By the way, lots of them are uninsured because they made a choice not to be insured. Twenty-five year olds dont need insurance; us old folks do. I am also equally convinced that there are some uninsured folks who desperately want to get insurance. I think that is laudable. My advice: Get to work and buy some.

By the way, I didn't get any of this off a bumper sticker or from a talk show host. I have thought thru it and firmly believe it to be true.

So, as Sean Conery so elequently said in the movie "The Untouchables": "Here the endeth the lesson" .

More food for thought.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[DavidCBaker]

David:

It's a sad fact that everyone will not ever have everything that everyone else has. They are all created in God's image and of equal value in His eyes, but they dont stay that way very long. Government intervention in anything never solves the problem of "equality". There are many competing views of what "equality" is.

To me, equality essentially means equal opportunity, and not taking from the affluent and giving to the poor. That's why--even though I don't have the answer--I'm pretty sure the government doesn't, either.

The fact is that insurance is not a "right"; it is a priviledge that you purchase if you are affluent enough to do so. This truth is not taught much anymore; because folks simply dont think about it. I am of a firm mind that if insurance payments were made to the individual and then to the doctor; costs would go down due to the shock factor of the costs involved.

Me too. And in my consulting business, I advise all my clients who pay 100% of healthcare to drop it to 80% or less, and even bump up salaries to make people "whole" if they need to. But at least from there forward, they'll share the pain.

In fact, the very theory behind "withholding" taxes when it was passed was that people were less likely to notice and object if they never even got the money in the first place. Same with health care premiums. Everybody ought to get their full gross check, and then have to pay taxes (with strict enforcement). It's the only way people will realize how wasteful we are as a country.

I agree that something needs to be done, but i am absolutely convinced that it is not wat government wants to do to buy votes.

Like I said, I completely agree. For starters, don't give legislators any special treatment. But take this, for example. If I go to a hospital and get a procedure, I'm likely to pay 2-3x for the exact same thing a major carrier would pay. That's just plain wrong.

By they way i am, in fact, a "far right folk(s)"; I wear it like a badge of honor. My advice is that you need to be too. If you want to help others; do it on thru your own benelovence (the church, doctors, and hospitals used to do it -- don't call on government to do it.).

Thanks for the advice, but I don't want much to do with the far right. Just like I don't want much to do with the far left. Single+ issue voting isn't for me, nor am I going to have someone else define how I should think. I am a total capitalist by trade, a near libertarian by belief, and a caring person regarding people.

And yes, we help people all the time. We're especially pulled to help single mothers and have taken it as a personal mission.

Thanks for the interaction. Too bad we weren't in office. We could get some things done.

[Guest thorn]

"Libertarian; 1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will" Where does it say we?

[DavidCBaker]

"Libertarian; 1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will" Where does it say we?

I'm not sure I'm following your question.

[leroy]

"Libertarian; 1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will" Where does it say we?

This is a great post!! The "we" here, i would read, is the "we, the individual"; as opposed to "we, the government"; --- i think. Government intrusion into any activity that it seeks to regulate negates the possibility of the basis libertarian free will tennant of "we, the individual" once the discussion is over and the collective political decision is made law.

As i would understand it; you cant invoke the "we of government" and claim to be of libertarian philosophy. It negates the "we, the individual". The "we of government" is antithetical to the basic philosophical tennant of libertarianism.

Good Job!! Keep up the good work!!!

Kind Regards,

LEROY

PS:

David:____________

Thanks for the advice, but I don't want much to do with the far right. Just like I don't want much to do with the far left. Single+ issue voting isn't for me, nor am I going to have someone else define how I should think. (me either -- LEROY) I am a total capitalist by trade (I like it; keep up the good work and advise others to do the same !! -- LEROY) , a near libertarian by belief (great philosophical start! - LEROY), and a caring person regarding people (Jesus called us to be!! - Judeo-Christian Ethics call us to be, if we are people of faith -- LEROY).

And yes, we help people all the time. We're especially pulled to help single mothers and have taken it as a personal mission (We are called to put beliefs into action, keep up the good work! -- LEROY).

Thanks for the interaction. Too bad we weren't in office. We could get some things done.

Sorry I've not convinced ya yet; I'll just keep working on it.

RE: Office: We could run on the old "T. R. Bullmoose Platform" as third (hopefully Libertarian) party candidates!!

Keep up the good work!!

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Guest thorn]

Not really a question - more of a thought. I was referring to how you use "we' in regards to getting something done.

You talk about the people that can't afford insurance as if being compassionate but then you throw out a statistic of 1/3 of Americans being uninsured as if they go hand in hand with each other. Statistics are a funny thing they do not relate directly to feeling or morals yet you expect some sort of concession to your argument by using them while there is no real comparison given in the statistic itself ie: individuals that choose not to be insured, the ones that use the systems in place to get their healthcare while uninsured, the un-insurable...

Further "If I go to a hospital and get a procedure, I'm likely to pay 2-3x for the exact same thing a major carrier would pay." There are far too many examples of just the opposite and just not worth noting.

Then you use capitalist, libertarian, and caring as kind of a basis of belief or politics. I guess I just have a different understanding of the three - mine actually being more accurate if you look them up with the exception of caring being more of a moral issue to me. I see none of them as a collective. Insisting that the rest of us do what you do or think is right and heading caution to those that do not is part of the problem I see.

To be frank statements like "Take a few steps in their shoes before you get all high and mighty" are at best an insult when you use them as a blanket label. You have no idea where I came from or have walked and I would invite nobody to that place.

[DavidCBaker]

Not really a question - more of a thought. I was referring to how you use "we' in regards to getting something done.

I was talking about "we" as humans. It wasn't meant as any collective or group.

You talk about the people that can't afford insurance as if being compassionate but then you throw out a statistic of 1/3 of Americans being uninsured as if they go hand in hand with each other.

I threw that out to illustrate that there's a problem, though I don't know how to fix it. Go look up how many uninsured there are in developed countries. It had nothing to do with compassion.

Further "If I go to a hospital and get a procedure, I'm likely to pay 2-3x for the exact same thing a major carrier would pay." There are far too many examples of just the opposite and just not worth noting.

That's a lame argument. If that's the case, show me some research on it, or at least examples. It's widely known that large insurance carries pay much less than individuals, even after negotiation. I'm open to what you're saying--just want to see where that comes from.

Then you use capitalist, libertarian, and caring as kind of a basis of belief or politics. I guess I just have a different understanding of the three - mine actually being more accurate if you look them up with the exception of caring being more of a moral issue to me. I see none of them as a collective.

Huh? Who said anything about collective. Goodness gracious--I thought it was pretty darn obvious I was talking about MYSELF.

Insisting that the rest of us do what you do or think is right and heading caution to those that do not is part of the problem I see.

I'd ask you to read again what I said. I NEVER said other people need to think or do what I believe is right for myself.

To be frank statements like "Take a few steps in their shoes before you get all high and mighty" are at best an insult when you use them as a blanket label. You have no idea where I came from or have walked and I would invite nobody to that place.

Goodness gracious again. I'm not sure you really understood what I wrote. There was NOTHING blanket about it. That's sort of what "some of you" means. If it doesn't apply, or you think I'm wrong, just ignore it! Most people ignore me, and I'm used to it.

[Guest mustangdave]

I try to keep my nose out of this debate...cause its a real ball buster. I'm retired military...so in a way, I'm already on the Gov't Healthcare Program...though I have great doctors, superior care and coverage...and awesome premium rates when compared to what some folks shell out for BCBS or other health ins. To me its not a matter of affordable HEALTH CARE....EVERYONE that comes into a hospital or doctors office WILL get HEALTH CARE. Its the HEALTH INSURANCE "coverage" that needs to be addressed...it should be left up top the individual to get what "coverage" they want and or need...not mandated by Uncle O...and Auntie Nancy

[Guest thorn]

I was talking about "we" as humans. It wasn't meant as any collective or group.

I threw that out to illustrate that there's a problem, though I don't know how to fix it. Go look up how many uninsured there are in developed countries. It had nothing to do with compassion.

I'm not one of the statistics. I'm self employed and pay for my own insurance - I do not get counted statistically. Still I do not see not having insurance as the problem, I see the sense of entitlement as a problem. Here let's use this as an example: CA just had that vote whether or not to raise their taxes to pay for all their expenses. Overwhelmingly it was rejected, now do you think that all those people out there want to give anything up? I'll stretch and answer that for you NO, they still want the dog beaches, sidewalks, entitlements, right to safety - well being - clean air - clean water - we can all add to the list, but the fact is they do not want to pay for it.

That's a lame argument. If that's the case, show me some research on it, or at least examples. It's widely known that large insurance carries pay much less than individuals, even after negotiation. I'm open to what you're saying--just want to see where that comes from.

Not research - my vasectomy, I called got the quotes went with cash. Also when my son was 1 he needed a minor surgery we made the same calls and cash was the choice. There's little things like what a hospital charges the ok'd amount for a baby blanket that you just wouldn't see in a quoted cash procedure.

Again you're making a blanket statement you're not offering anything here. Arguments and research can be shown for both. Think about it what all the pro bono stuff don't you have to count that too? I'm not saying that I'm right 100% or that you are wrong, I'm just saying that it is bad as a blanket statement and a published conception that they are the bad guys. In fact thinking about it I would expect that my insurance company pay less, really what am I paying them for. The bad thing is it's similar to what you said about paying out of their check to feel the pain, because you don't see all the crap that they slide in the billing when the insurance company pays the tab.

The biggest failure in this argument is not to account for the cost of the insurance itself.

Huh? Who said anything about collective. Goodness gracious--I thought it was pretty darn obvious I was talking about MYSELF.

I concede.

I'd ask you to read again what I said. I NEVER said other people need to think or do what I believe is right for myself.

I'm reading this again and thinking... "Me too. And in my consulting business, I advise all my clients who pay 100% of healthcare to drop it to 80% or less, and even bump up salaries to make people "whole" if they need to. But at least from there forward, they'll share the pain.

In fact, the very theory behind "withholding" taxes when it was passed was that people were less likely to notice and object if they never even got the money in the first place. Same with health care premiums. Everybody ought to get their full gross check, and then have to pay taxes (with strict enforcement). It's the only way people will realize how wasteful we are as a country."

Goodness gracious again. I'm not sure you really understood what I wrote. There was NOTHING blanket about it. That's sort of what "some of you" means. If it doesn't apply, or you think I'm wrong, just ignore it! Most people ignore me, and I'm used to it.

This is what you wrote

" But some of you far right folks might want to think carefully about what it's like to be in someone's shoes who can't afford insurance of any kind. Those people are not all deadbeats living off your tax dollars, using green stamps for steak. Some of them are doing the very best they can while their kids are crying from hunger or lack of medical attention. Take a few steps in their shoes before you get all high and mighty, pontificating with bumper sticker nonsense built on over simplification."

I guess in opposition I see myself as "far right" after walking in my own shoes.

Look I'm not trying to be an advocate for the insurance companies or healthcare for cash. I am however a strong opponent of this "we have to do something" if you feel or have the need, then go do something about it. Just leave the "we" out of it!

Edited July 10, 2009 by thorn

[DavidCBaker]

I don't know where to start, so I'll just bow out of this after speaking to just one point in your response about your experience in paying less in fees than an insurance plan would have paid.

I don't doubt your experience at all, but that's not typical, as I mentioned earlier. The most basic research confirms that. The first three hits I got in Google:

Office of the Illinois Attorney General - Madigan Legislation To Reduce Hospital Charges for Uninsured

Hospitals Charge Uninsured and ?Self-Pay? Patients More than Double What Insured Patients Pay

Chicago Hospital Sued for Overcharging Uninsured Patient: Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Hospital's Right to Charge Different Rates :: Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Have a great weekend. I just got back from two hours at the range and had a lot more fun shooting than I'm having arguing.

[Guest thorn]

I see how you are, you were at the range while I was grocery shopping! Then you have to rub it in my face now that's not right - I want equal range time for all Americans (including me) whether they have insurance or not.

If you GOOGLE ice cream I think the 1st hits would probably be for just that. I only gave the couple of examples because you asked for them. They have nothing to do with hospitals charging more to a cash customer than an insured one, they are only examples of "doing something about it"

Again, I expect my insurance company to negotiate with the hospitals for a lower rate.

[Mark@Sea]

I'll just note that if you pay for something, you get a lot more of it. In the 60's the gov't started paying welfare to single mothers. Wasn't a huge problem statistically; there were societal dampers on being unwed and pregnant. The fear of starvation really put brakes on that sort of thing, for example. But paying the poor girls a bit extra (per child) was the compassionate thing to do.

Now unwed mothers, many teenagers themselves, are 'normal'. Anecdotes abound of young women getting pregnant not to start a family, but to collect that government bounty. The 'compassionate' response to unwed mothers led to an explosion of the problem.

The problem isn't that people don't have access to health care. The problem is that a few can't pay for it. The compassionate thing to do, of course, is to mandate that others pay for them. Spreading the cost of the healthcare by means of taxing others, along with strict regulation of what hospitals and doctors are allowed to charge for their services.

So, take the cost/benefit equation out of going to the emergency room. Imagine the results that will have on hospital services twenty years from now. Imagine the results of fixing prices in a commodity/service that depends on highly trained people, who for some strange reason don't care to go through years of expensive schooling and then donate their services for free, or work for an artificially lowered wage.

No matter how you cut it, we'll have fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer hospitals. No doubt the services they provide will be available to all - you'll just have to survive the wait. No line jumping (unless you are a VIP, of course).

Compassion is a fine and admirable quality. Forcing others to foot the bill, both in financial and practical consequences, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

On the bright side, how about a proposal that we mandate that lawyers work for a fixed wage, affordable by all but the indigent? Say $40/Hour, that seems fair. After all, legal services are in high demand in this country, and are affordable by a relative few.

[DavidCBaker]

I see how you are, you were at the range while I was grocery shopping! Then you have to rub it in my face now that's not right - I want equal range time for all Americans (including me) whether they have insurance or not.

So this probably wouldn't be the right time to tell you that we spent 7 hours shooting outside today?

[Guest grimel]

I've got to disagree that it's the "main cause of the rise in healthcare costs since it's inception." How do you justify that statement?

Medicare/medicaid has a built in minimum increase (rarely if ever has it been the minimum because that gets reported as "cutting" medicare/medicaid). Amazingly, the rise in health care costs tracks the increase in M/M spending increases (far far outpacing inflation).

I'd like to know how you figure anything that spends more than it takes in is in any way efficient and needs to be used as a model of anything to DO.

[Guest grimel]

More than one-freakin-third of Americans are uninsured. I don't have the solution, but there is something wrong and we ought to fix it. I don't think the idiot politicians are the solution, unfortunately, especially since they have healthcare for life. Gawd, that makes me mad.

Give me a break! Even using the numbers ginned up by the democrats including illegals in the equation the number is only 45 million. That is less than 1/6 of the population. Take out the illegals and the number drops even more.

Solution? How about we try a novel idea and let the free market work? Remove all the idiotic laws and restrictions on selling insurance. Drop the healthcare deductions for employers and give the deduction to everyone.

[Guest grimel]

I'll just note that if you pay for something, you get a lot more of it. In the 60's the gov't started paying welfare to single mothers. Wasn't a huge problem statistically; there were societal dampers on being unwed and pregnant. The fear of starvation really put brakes on that sort of thing, for example. But paying the poor girls a bit extra (per child) was the compassionate thing to do.

Now unwed mothers, many teenagers themselves, are 'normal'. Anecdotes abound of young women getting pregnant not to start a family, but to collect that government bounty. The 'compassionate' response to unwed mothers led to an explosion of the problem.

The problem isn't that people don't have access to health care. The problem is that a few can't pay for it. The compassionate thing to do, of course, is to mandate that others pay for them. Spreading the cost of the healthcare by means of taxing others, along with strict regulation of what hospitals and doctors are allowed to charge for their services.

So, take the cost/benefit equation out of going to the emergency room. Imagine the results that will have on hospital services twenty years from now. Imagine the results of fixing prices in a commodity/service that depends on highly trained people, who for some strange reason don't care to go through years of expensive schooling and then donate their services for free, or work for an artificially lowered wage.

No matter how you cut it, we'll have fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer hospitals. No doubt the services they provide will be available to all - you'll just have to survive the wait. No line jumping (unless you are a VIP, of course).

Compassion is a fine and admirable quality. Forcing others to foot the bill, both in financial and practical consequences, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

On the bright side, how about a proposal that we mandate that lawyers work for a fixed wage, affordable by all but the indigent? Say $40/Hour, that seems fair. After all, legal services are in high demand in this country, and are affordable by a relative few.

For those who are about to start arguing with Mark@sea, look at Canada, Germany, Britain, France, pick your fav government payer system. Socialized medicine has NEVER resulted in an increase in services, only cutbacks and rationing.

[DavidCBaker]

Give me a break! Even using the numbers ginned up by the democrats including illegals in the equation the number is only 45 million. That is less than 1/6 of the population. Take out the illegals and the number drops even more.

Source?

[Guest thorn]

Source?

Yes and please do NOT give it from an AG's office, Ambulance chasers blog or the Bloomberg School.

[USMCJG]

Here is a story from The Business and Media Institute:

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'

You can read it for yourself, but I'll hit a few key points here- all from the aforementioned article, most statistics are taken directly from the 2005 Census Bureau report:

1) "there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year"(should be able to afford insurance)

2) there are "8.74 million (uninsured) who make more than $75,000 a year"(should be able to afford insurance)

3) there are "9.487 million (uninsured)people who are 'not a citizen.' â€

4) "the number of uninsured American citizens who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year is between 13.9 million and 8.2 million"(see 5)

5) the "8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more. It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office."

Cliff

[DavidCBaker]

Here is a story from The Business and Media Institute:

Sorry, but that is not a "source" in any conventional use of the word.

[Guest thorn]

Sorry, but that is not a "source" in any conventional use of the word.

Of course it's not from the New Yorker

[canadienmike]

Sorry, but that is not a "source" in any conventional use of the word.

How about this source then?

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

[DavidCBaker]

Of course it's not from the New Yorker

Touché.

I guess we're playing Google ping-pong.

[USMCJG]

Sorry, but that is not a "source" in any conventional use of the word.

So exactly what would be considered a real source. You are more than welcome to show me any other source than can directly refute any of the claims made in that article.

Just from a brief look at the Census report linked by canadienmike:

1) Uninsured making $50,000 to $74,999 per year- 8,459,000

2) Uninsured making over $75,000 per year- 9,283,000

3) Uninsured who are not citizens- 10,231,000

Total number of uninsured- 46,995,000

Total number of uninsured less those groups listed above- 19,067,000

Also, between 2006 and 2007 the number of uninsured whites and blacks DECREASED. The number of uninsured asians, native Americans, and Pacific islanders remained approximately the same. The only group which saw a statistically significant increase in number of uninsured were Hispanics, which should come as no surprise due to illegal immigration.

Cliff