I have some family who's retired and moved to Florida. Being in Florida, their entire neighborhood is filled with oldies from all over the country.
Just to give you guys a little bit of background, a family member who's down there, we'll call him Ed, is a retired engineer who used to work in a field relating to national security. He's one of the brightest and intellectually curious guys I've ever known.
Well, Ed was having a conversation with a neighbor who's a retired government worker from the state of Pennsylvania. He's a sweet old man, but his pension is 95% his last working salary.
Now, according to Ed, in many of the Western European nations, retirement pensions are around 66% your last salary. But his neighbor is getting a full 95%!
But....here's the problem, Ed's neighbor does not get to keep that 95%. Why? Because, being an oldie, he has to have health insurance. Why does he need to buy private health insurance? Because Pennsylvania doesn't provide any health insurance to their retirees.
Ed's neighbor pays a full $3,000 a MONTH for his health insurance. Why doesn't he go on Medicare/Medicaid? Because no doctor will accept it because the dwindling reinburstments are so low (and are getting lower). When all is said and done, Ed's neighbor gets to keep about 44% of a 95% pension, and Pennsylvania has already started to cut that back.
Isn't a for-profit health care system grand? Your tax dollars gets to subsidize this waste and abuse just because we can't get health care right in this country.
Would Ed's neighbor be happy to see his see his pension cut back significantly if he could just get cheaper health care? You bet, and he'd be happy to pay more in taxes too.
But I guess people like Scott Walker (and his supporters) would rather just leave this sweet old man to die on the side of the road. And if he complains, take a baseball bat to his head.
In all the events of the last 2 weeks, I kept seeing photos, interviews, and speeches by Governor Scott Walker. And I noticed something...
...take a moment to look at these pictures...
http://www.hutchnews.com/assets/5940955/5bf19a9b44bd9404e50e6a7067009405_w500.jpg
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/lacrossetribune.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/9/d2/b25/9d2b2518-eafb-11df-84ab-001cc4c03286-revisions/4cd78ed8b5539.image.jpg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/02/24/alg_scott-walker-speaks.jpg
http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/9301339-large.jpg
http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2011/02/26/img-cs---scott-walker-wi_120953772807.jpg
http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/71211_5_.jpg
...is it just me, or...
...okay, let me back this up a bit. It's no secret here that I am a judicous user of a certain drug. I know there's a few people on this board that are also quite familiar. Now is it just me, or does Scott Walker look...a little...stoned?
-- Modified on 2/27/2011 10:39:22 PM
you should move to Madison. You'd fit right in with all those assholes who will protest anything just to get in front of a camera.
You love yourself more than Barack Obama loves himself. And that is quite an accomplishment.
...judging from the protests going on all around the country, it looks like I'm among friends from....
everything I saw his picture I was reminded of Howdy Dowdy. You know, that sort of vacant stare and wooden expression, like one who's had a lobotomy.
from weed though. It looks like an opiate or an antidepressant.
Why doesn't Ed do what most people do: take Medicare and then purchase private supplemental insurrance (known as Medi-Gap) to cover what Medicare doesn't. My Dad did that and got great coverage in Florida. Medi-Gap costs about $4,000 a year.
I have no idea. I don't know anything about Medi-Gap. I'll ask and see what "Ed" says, and report back.
Scott Walker is responsible for the road kill everywhere. Even all the human road kill. Oh, the humanity!!!
We supposedly have a "for profit health care system"? And that is the reason health insurance costs $3000 a month for this Ed person?
Really?
I thought it was because of billions of dollars of health care spending by the government driving up prices, the HMO act of 1973 creating these leviathans that serve patients very poorly, the government herding people into employer based health care through tax policies and wage caps, all sorts of regulations at the state and local level, such as outlawing "age discrimination" (that's a big one, which I will explain), and a very litigious society that makes malpractice insurance cost as much as a million dollars a year for some doctors.
Take, for example, age discrimination legislation. You make it illegal for insurance companies to charge older customers higher premiums, the insurance companies have no choice but to raise rates for younger, healthy people. The elderly do cost more to care for, so the insurance company needs to take in more money for them in order to pay for their care. Much of this money comes from the younger, healthier insurance customers, since they use very little in the way of health services. But if you increase their premiums, many of them will decide they don't need insurance that badly. Fewer people end up paying for the care of the elderly, so then the elderly end up paying even more in premiums than they would have without the anti-discrimination laws.
You want to blame the "for profit" part of our health care system? When some little tiny market-like component of a system is combined with massive government regulation, its always the "free market" that is blamed for the resulting problems.
Simply put, 80% -90% of younger men are sicker than the older people. Younger people eat carp, are obese, have health issues like Diabetes, Asthma, and many other chronic diseases I have never heard off.
All of insurance is based actuarial science and all of the models works on the premise younger people needing less care but that is not working today.
Eventually, healthcare is going to be outsourced because it is going to be pout of reach of common man.
Really?
I thought it was because of billions of dollars of health care spending by the government driving up prices, the HMO act of 1973 creating these leviathans that serve patients very poorly, the government herding people into employer based health care through tax policies and wage caps, all sorts of regulations at the state and local level, such as outlawing "age discrimination" (that's a big one, which I will explain), and a very litigious society that makes malpractice insurance cost as much as a million dollars a year for some doctors.
Take, for example, age discrimination legislation. You make it illegal for insurance companies to charge older customers higher premiums, the insurance companies have no choice but to raise rates for younger, healthy people. The elderly do cost more to care for, so the insurance company needs to take in more money for them in order to pay for their care. Much of this money comes from the younger, healthier insurance customers, since they use very little in the way of health services. But if you increase their premiums, many of them will decide they don't need insurance that badly. Fewer people end up paying for the care of the elderly, so then the elderly end up paying even more in premiums than they would have without the anti-discrimination laws.
You want to blame the "for profit" part of our health care system? When some little tiny market-like component of a system is combined with massive government regulation, its always the "free market" that is blamed for the resulting problems.
You can't seriously be claiming that young people spend as much on health care as do older people, nobody can be that stupid, can they???
anonymousfun, "Simply put, 80% -90% of younger men are sicker than the older people. Younger people eat carp, are obese, have health issues like Diabetes, Asthma, and many other chronic diseases I have never heard of."
Just because you think you've never heard, doesn't mean you haven't forgot.
I just remembered, Asians were eating carp long before the Jews.
What corner of your mind did you obtain your "simply put" statistics?
I know you meant crap, however younger people eating Nacho's and Cheese are much healthier, than senile old geezers who believe they are healthier than younger men.
Where did you get those statistics?
I found this:
Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women's longer life expectancy. Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years. For survivors to age 85, more than one-third of their lifetime expenditures will accrue in their remaining years.
The following is from the US Department of Health & Human Services:
* Per person personal health care spending for the 65 and older population was $14,797 in 2004, 5.6 times higher than spending per child ($2,650) and 3.3 times spending per working-age person ($4,511).
* In 2004, children accounted for 26 percent of the population and 13 percent of PHC spending.
* The working-age group comprised the majority of spending and population in 2004, at 52 percent and 62 percent respectively.
* The elderly were the smallest population group at 12 percent of the population, and accounted for the remaining 34 percent of spending in 2004.
* Spending for those 85 years and older relative to spending for all other age groups, decreased from 1987 to 2004, mainly due to a slowdown in nursing home spending.
* Medicare enrollment growth is anticipated to be a stronger influence on future spending growth than the changing age-mix of the Medicare population.
You would think that the running dogs of capitalism could come up with a better solution than what we have and still make a profit from it. OTOH why is Ed's so high? I think he should shop around! I am a geezer and I pay a third of that.
I'm still waiting for an answer to me "Ed" question.
They WOULD find a better solution, if the government didn't keep trying to do it instead.
People complain about HMOs, and blame their inefficient, expensive, poor service on the free market. But did you ever hear of the HMO Act of 1973, which created HMOs in the first place?
Medicare and Medicare were first created to help provide health care for those who supposedly couldn't afford it themselves. This was supposed to solve the problem. Apparently it didn't because government keeps trying.
Each state has its own code of regulations imposed on the health care system, and they do not allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. This reduces competition, and is one reason this Ed guy can't shop around.
Governments keep running up prices by throwing lots of money at the system. It has herded vast numbers of people into employer based health care systems through the tax code and wage caps during WWII. It has regulated the industry till we use "insurance" to pay for almost everything, instead of having catastrophic-only coverage.
What I would like to have is catastrophic only coverage combined with a health care savings account. This would serve my needs well now while I am young enough to have very little need for health care, and still provide for me when I am older. But high regulation and lack of competition makes it impossible for me to get that.
-- Modified on 3/1/2011 2:45:05 AM
I don't dispute most of what you say but there are some obvious errors in it:
1) Medicare, as I'm sure you know but omitted is NOT "for those who supposedly couldn't afford it themselves." Only Medicaid is. Medicare can only be used by those over 65. A small point, perhaps.
2) The new Obamacare law actually does permit people to buy insurance across state lines.
3) Ed CAN shop around for supplemental "medi-gap" insurance. It generally costs about $4,000 a year. It's inexplicable why "he" doesn't know about it and instead chooses to pay $3,000 a month. If he exists, he's badly in need of a wakeup call. Things are bad but not as bad as the OP suggests.
Obamacare did include a provision to allow people to buy insurance across state lines, but it has no teeth. The states themselves are allowed to determine which other states their citizens can buy from, so they have no incentive to ease up on bad regulation. They simply allow people to buy from states with the same kinds of bad regulations.
-- Modified on 3/1/2011 2:06:00 PM
The United States is the ONLY industrialized nation in the world where the majority of all health care is provided by the private sector. It also has the highest health care costs as a percentage of GDP (last I looked, it was 19% here, while 11% in Canada), with some of the worse outcomes.
Just a friendly reminder, in case the capitalist fundies forgot.
And what does that have to do with the health care that a free market would provide, since America does not have a free market in health care?
As I have said before, we have massive health care spending through Medicare and Medicaid, people herded into employer provided health care systems, the government created HMOs through the HMO Act of 1973, we have massive regulation on the state level, and states have not allowed people to buy insurance across state lines. (The provision to allow purchases across state lines in Obamacare has no teeth.)
From :Socailized Medicine is Already Here:
That is largely true of America's health care system. Government controls production and consumption by determining the number of physicians; what services medical professionals can offer and under what terms; where they can practice; who can open a hospital or purchase a new MRI; who can market a drug or medical device; and what kind of health insurance consumers may purchase.
Government bureaucrats even set the prices for half of our health care sector directly, and indirectly set prices for the other half. When you read about Medicare over-paying imaging centers and hospitals, or that it's impossible for Bostonians to get an appointment with a general practitioner, it's largely because the bureaucrats got the prices wrong, and those rigid prices do not automatically eliminate shortages and gluts like flexible market prices do.
A second feature of socialist economies is that there is little incentive to make careful economic decisions, because government has put everyone in the position of spending other people's money.
Canada may have the most heavily socialized health care system in the advanced world. Yet America's system is as much a tragedy of the commons as the Canadian system, where health care is ostensibly "free." In each country, only about 14 cents out of every dollar of medical spending comes directly from the patient.
How can America's health care system be "socialized" when we rely on the private sector more than any advanced nation? Because it doesn't matter whether the dollars and the hospitals are owned publicly or privately. What matters is who controls how they are used.
In 2007, the average family of four will pay $25,000 for health insurance — nearly 30 percent of their income. About $14,000 represents taxes that fund health programs for the elderly and the poor. In other words, the government controls the lion's share.
The remaining $11,000 purchases the family's own coverage, usually through an employer. Though we count that as "private" spending, the government largely controls that $11,000 as well.
Congress provides a substantial tax break for employer-controlled health insurance. That sounds nice, but it means that workers who want to control their coverage themselves face a tax penalty. That penalty often forces such workers to pay twice as much for less coverage. That benign-sounding "tax break" effectively requires Americans to let someone else control a large chunk of their incomes and their health care decisions.
We may call that "private" spending. But notice the hallmarks: government denies individuals control over their economic decisions, and encourages them to act as if they were spending someone else's money — in this case, their employer's.
How can our system be "socialized" if we don't force patients to wait for care, as other nations do? America does ration by waiting — just ask any Medicaid patient — though we do so less often than nations where governments arbitrarily limit medical spending.
But that's because we commit the opposite sin: our government encourages unlimited health care spending, which causes enormous waste.
For example, the federal Medicare program essentially makes an open-ended commitment to pay for whatever medical care seniors and their doctors demand. That may be why researchers at Dartmouth Medical School have estimated that Medicare purchases $60 billion in useless services every year. That's nearly one-fifth of all Medicare spending. It also may explain why we spend 50 percent more on medical care than other advanced nations without making ourselves noticeably healthier.
Surely, America doesn't have socialized medicine of the Canadian or British variety, or socialized medicine borne of some deliberate plan. But American politicians should stop pretending that socialized medicine is some far-off dystopia.
As for what a free market would do for health care, look at what it does for most every other sector of the economy. It increases supply, improves quality, and brings down prices. Aside from the Microsoft antitrust case, the computer industry has been fairly free, and just compare what you can buy today, compared to what kind of computers were available 20 years ago. The improvement is astounding, even if you only measure it by gigabytes and gigahertz per dollar. Not even taking inflation into account!
I think I said something resembling that, too.
Here's another good one: Socialist Medicine in America, by Timothy D. Terrell, written in 2003:
But there are other ways in which government is invading medical care. Earlier this year, the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act (HIPPA) took effect. This horribly misnamed bill actually destroys patient privacy by allowing government bureaucrats, insurance companies, and others to gain access to private medical records without the patient's consent. Potentially even more dangerous is the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA), which would grant state governors immense powers in the event of a public health "emergency," a condition that exists when so determined by the governor, of course. We'll take each of these in turn.
Medicare Reform
The Medicare reform would continue a long-term trend in American medical care—the intrusion of federal subsidies and regulation into every aspect of medical care. Over a third of all medical care is administered under federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. The bureaucracy that follows this intervention has added immense complexity and expense to the practice of medicine. There are elaborate diagnostic and treatment codes that require doctors to follow bureaucratic rules for medical care. Where Medicare or Medicaid are involved, a free market does not exist.
The government regulates prices, and it is illegal for the doctor to ask for or receive anything different, even if the patient agrees. Anything less than absolute adherence to the rules, indeed even a paperwork error, can be regarded as a felony charge of defrauding the government. A close enough look at almost any physician's practice would probably turn up some offense—which means that anyone the government wants to prosecute, it can prosecute. In effect, regulatory terrorism is being imposed upon the medical profession.
Medicare is a significant contributor to increased medical costs, by creating a large third party payer. In 1960, the government covered 21.4 percent of personal medical care expenditures. Americans covered 55.2 percent out-of-pocket. Most of the rest came from private medical insurance. In 2000, the government covered 43.3 percent of personal medical expenditures, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other government programs. Out-of-pocket spending accounted for only 17.2 percent of the total.
Over the same 40-year period, total personal medical spending increased by more than ten times, from an inflation-adjusted $111 billion in 1960 to $1130 billion in 2000. Some of this may be attributable to changing priorities, as Americans demanded relatively more medical care as other needs were satisfied in a growing economy. A large part, however, may be due to the incentives that appear whenever a third party is paying for medical care. In 1960, when Americans paid for the majority of their medical care out-of-pocket, they were more likely to watch for unnecessary expenditures. Today, with 83 percent of medical care being provided by a third party, we are naturally less vigilant.
What country has a totally free market health care system?
I would just like to compair them.
As far as a free market system here, I would be concerned about a few things.
One that was mention in an earlier post was cross state selling of insurance.
With out the preexisting condition coverage requirement, don't you think this could create an imbalance?
For instance, MA requires that all people are able to buy insurance regardless of health. In this case costs of treating people with cancer, diabetes, heart conditions is spread through the whole system creating higher over all costs.
In lets say TX (I'm not sure of the actual law there), Insurance companies are aloud to refuse people with conditions, and stop service at a point when they develop. The cost of insurance is much lower (do to the fact that they don't pay for all care.)
Now you tell the healthy people in MA they can buy their insurance in TX, and they do in groves, leaving only the people with higher costs stuck in MA.
What happens to the cost of insurance for people with conditions in MA? Through the roof, totally unaffordable and the system collapses.
My other concern is the thought of our state insurance companies merging into mega health insurance companies. What could happen if we found ourselves with ten to fifteen national companies with central financial pools. What would happen if a couple of those companies screwed up and started going bankrupt...... Ahh never mind, paranoid... That would be like all our banks going bankrupt and needing billions of tax dollars to stay open
Your first concern is actually part of the point to allowing people to buy across state lines. Forbidding insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions is actually a bad idea. It sounds nice, but as you said, it drives up the price for everyone else. Competition between states would motivate states with such bad regulations to repeal them.
As for what happened in our financial sector happening in a free market health care industry, it couldn't, because we didn't have a free market financial sector. We had the Federal Reserve monkeying with the money supply and interest rates. A free market does not have a central bank. We had all sorts of pro home ownership policies like Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy and Bush's American Dream Downpayment Act. We had Fannie and Freddie buying up and guaranteeing mortgages. We had ratings agencies given a monopoly by the SEC, which required investment banks to use those ratings agencies, but only certifying three. Thats only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our financial regulations.
Both the health care industry and our financial institutions are suffering from similar problems, with similar causes. Neither have anything to do with a free market.
So if we were to have a true "Free Market" health care system, there would be no pre-existing condition laws at the federal level which seem like a lot of people on the right are screaming for. They are looking for that imbalance. The republican base was against any laws mandating coverage for pre existing conditions while at the same time pushing for cross state sales. Only recently, since the Health Care Debate have they slightly changed positions on it, and that's only for popular appeal of it and not the financial implications.
I also notice that no one has named a country that has a Free Market Health Care System, I believe that is because any country that has one, has no system to speak of.
My other problem with a Free Market System is;
How free can the system be if the consumers other option is to die or suffer?
Now as far as my concern of state insurance companies merging into mega national insurance companies. For the sake of argument the country is left with 10 health insurance companies. Each one would be worth about 1 trillion dollars. Are you saying that left to their own devices with out any oversight there is no chance that one of these companies could bankrupt its self, leaving 10s of millions uninsured and most likely taking out several banks in the process? Just due to the sheer volume of money any such company would have in its control makes it an unacceptable risk
By the way, I'm diabetic. Your views would leave me without treatment.