You seem to have the same mistaken belief that many have that universal healthcare equals free healthcare. It is not free. In countries that have it, a tax is levied against your pay each week exactly like a health insurance premium.
You are also mistaken in thinking that universal healthcare equals better quality care. The only difference there is that instead of an insurance provider determining what care you receive, the government decides. I know that in the UK there are many treatments and prescription drugs that are not paid for by the NHS because they are deemed too expensive. You have to settle for treatments and drugs that are less effective and may have more side effects than ones that cost more.
You also think that eliminating health insurance coverage will be a boon to employers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The minimum wage in the UK right now is around $11/hr. The reason is that the amount that is required to pay for the NHS is so great that they can't afford to have millions of workers making only $6-$7 an hour there as they would be getting more back in healthcare benefits than they are paying in taxes and the healtcare system would collapse. The raising of the minimum wage is a means of passing off the cost of the NHS to employers by forcing them to pay workers more so the government can collect more in taxes. This additional cost of doing business is also reflected in the prices of everything you buy. When the supermarket clerk, the kid flipping burgers at McDonalds, the gas station attendant and other typically low wage workers are being paid so much money then we have to pay more to shop in those places.
OK, so the low wage workers benefit from a higher paycheck you say, not so fast. The worker does not get to keep that money as it is deducted from their pay before they ever receive it. The worker making $6-$7 an hour today will still be making the same $6-$7 an hour after the cost of healthcare is deducted from their pay.
Universal healthcare will also create a shortage of qualified medical professionals working in the public hospitals. Why is a doctor or nurse going to pay huge sums on their medical training and then settle for the minimal amount the government bean counters will be willing to pay them to work in a hospital when they can work in private practice or a private hospital where the patient pays and make a lot more money? Aggravating this is the fact that people who would normally live with a sniffle or minor aches and pains will be running down to the doctor for every little thing. I know I would be if I was being taxed for it anyway. That means you will have to wait longer to see a doctor. Just getting an appointment to see a publicly funded GP will be a problem, forget trying to get a hospital bed for a surgical procedure.
There will also be a ripple effect in the economy. The additional cost to employers of having to pay their employees more money to cover the healthcare tax means they will have less money for creating new jobs which will increase unemployment. The increase in prices on goods and services that will result will put a damper on sales and slow the economy even further. The cost to government will also be high. If you think Medicare/Medicaid abuse and fraud is bad, there will be much greater abuse and fraud under a universal healthcare system. We all remember the jokes. Pentagon pays $200 for toilet seat, Army pays $400 for a hammer, do you really want to see this happen in our hospitals when the government, funded by our taxes, is paying? We are seeing it now in Iraq. Soldiers being ordered to destroy perfectly serviceable trucks when they break down or get a flat tire so the military can order another one. Do we want to see this in our hospitals where things like dialysis machines, heart monitors, and other equipment that people depend on to stay alive breaks down and has to be discarded on a weekly basis?
Universal healthcare has ramifications that you are not seeing. It is steadily running the countries that have it into ruin.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 7:29:23 AM
Funding Medicare For All can be done many different ways. I think taxing imports could be a significant element along with higher taxes on incomes over $500,000 annually, higher corporate taxes, elimination of tax loopholes, elimination on the income ceiling for Medicare payroll taxes and ending no-bid government contracts.
As the article clearly states, we spend 17% of GNP on healthcare while our industrialized competitors spend only 8%. Eliminating profit-taking middlemen will go a long way to making universal healthcare affordable. Our nation certainly will profit hugely with a more efficient government-run system.
The critic above is merely repeating Republican and corporate talking points against the proposal like the article predicted. This are false flag arguments and nothing more.
by
Stephen Crockett (128 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:02:13 AM
Sweden's ruined? I had no idea. Please don't tell the Swedes, either. They're rather happy with their system, have great education, good housing, low crime and a meaninful sense of community.
P.S.: Medicare is and has been and will remain the single most economically efficient healthcare delivery system in the U.S. Statements to the contrary remain the stock-in-trade of the Profiteer Healthcare Denial Industry (i.e. insurance companies), who can't for an instant deliver the services Medicare does for even 10 times the price.
I say "will be" advisedly, however, noting that destroying Medicare is the wet dream of Repiglickins, Libertarians and other right-wing corporatists everywhere.
by
Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 43 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:31:44 AM
This article will not be well received among the infestation of libertarians currently scurrying about here, nevertheless it is both accurate and literate.
Medicare, for those who actually think things through, operates with a three percent overhead, making it the single most efficient form of health care in this nation. Regardless of the distortions of the care provided by other nations or the obvious lies as to the negative impact of providing care to all Americans from agendised and extremely selfish and selcf centered folsk sans a clue as to the obligations one incurs to one nation and fellow citizens the facts are very plain.
We are 37th in providing health care to our citizens, despite all the prattle ,despite all the dire warnings , every western nation ranks above us such matters......every western nation has lower infant mortality rates than do we, every western nation is more inclusive in providing health care than are we. Intolerable to anyone who loves his country, period.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:09:26 AM
This article will not be well received among the infestation of libertarians currently scurrying about here, nevertheless it is both accurate and literate.
Medicare, for those who actually think things through, operates with a three percent overhead, making it the single most efficient form of health care in this nation. Regardless of the distortions of the care provided by other nations or the obvious lies as to the negative impact of providing care to all Americans from agendised and extremely selfish and self centered folks sans a clue as to the obligations one incurs to one nation and fellow citizens the facts are very plain.
We are 37th in providing health care to our citizens, despite all the prattle ,despite all the dire warnings , every western nation ranks above us such matters......every western nation has lower infant mortality rates than do we, every western nation is more inclusive in providing health care than are we. Intolerable to anyone who loves his country, period.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:10:20 AM
I am going to respectfully disagree with the WATCHING'S comments and agree with the columnist.
Watching SAYS: OK, so the low wageworkers benefit from a higher paycheck you say, not so fast. The worker does not get to keep that money as it is deducted from their pay before they ever receive it. The worker making $6-$7 an hour today will still be making the same $6-$7 an hour after the cost of healthcare is deducted from their pay.
I say: However, they have lost nothing and now they have health care.
Watching SAYS: When the supermarket clerk, the kid flipping burgers at McDonalds, the gas station attendant and other typically low wage workers are being paid so much money then we have to pay more to shop in those places.
I say: prices always go up, now they go up and you have healthcare.
Watching SAYS: Universal healthcare will also create a shortage of qualified medical professionals working in the public hospitals. how is that going to happen, they have to do their internship somewhere and the master doctors overseeing them are well paid chief's of staff
Why is a doctor or nurse going to pay huge sums on their medical training and then settle for the minimal amount the government bean counters will be willing to pay them to work in a hospital when they can work in private practice or a private hospital where the patient pays and make a lot more money?
I SAY: the latest proposals demand that the government pay for doctors training. if we can blow $2-trillion on a war to kill we can afford at least that much to save lives.
Aggravating this is the fact that people who would normally live with a sniffle or minor aches and pains will be running down to the doctor for every little thing. I know I would be if I were being taxed for it anyway.
I say: we are already on Medicare and most people don't do that, and those few who do, did it anyway before they were on medicare because they are hypochondriacs. that only helps doctors make more money anyway and some doctors encourage that and so do drug companies. since drug companies began making commercials, they have created a world of hypochondriacs. That means you will have to wait longer to see a doctor. Just getting an appointment to see a publicly funded GP will be a problem, forget trying to get a hospital bed for a surgical procedure.
I say:it is no different than Medicare now. Besides other nations with national health care have greater life expectancies than Americans do.
I say: there are only so many patients and if the mass of them are on uhc who are these doctors in private practice going to treat? the rich? well if so they'd better be very good because there are not enough rich to support all the doctors in private practice.
Report after report says that doctors in private practice, unless they are specialists, make less money than doctors with offices in hospitals and that many in private practice are the dregs of the medical profession and we have encounter more than one quack with a license. They are in "Private Practice" because most of the large medical partnerships don't want them. Intelligence, plus dedication makes one excellent at what they do for a living. US doctors make more than any others in the world and most of the world has as good or better doctors than we do in America. Remember the medical schools here have had to cave in to demands of every sort and are admitting marginal students for a variety of reasons. when I chose a doctor, i never chose the guy with an office in a shopping center but the guy/gal with an office at the hospital.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1311 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:24:08 AM
I would only add that the current healthcare "model," in which human illness, misery and grief is a commodity for the profiteers even fails to provide adequate coverage for the people who HAVE it.
Witness the case of Nataline Sarkysian. She HAD for-profit healthcare, and her for-profit healthcare provider (Cigna) killed her outright by simply denying her the treatment that would have had a 65% chance of saving her life. Nataline's story is repeated day-after-day, time-after-time in thousands of families across the United States. Why? Because denying coverage maximizes profit. Profit is the operative word and the Holy Bug-a-Boo in this debate. Heaven knows it's a third rail among right-wingers, Repiglickins and Paulistas.
The vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the last several years have been caused by healthcare debt that people had as CO-PAYS from a profiteer healthcare company.
Clearly, the system is broken not just for the uninsured, but for the for-profit "insured," as well.
H.R. 676 is really the only viable option out there. As long as the profiteer motive remains a variable in our healthcare system, feeding and being fueled by the agony of suffering Americans, we will continue to live in crisis.
by
Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 43 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:07:36 AM
Chicago, Illinois. Rejecting a “band-aid approach” to healthcare, the University Professionals of Illinois, AFT Local 4100, endorsed HR 676, single payer healthcare legislation introduced by Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich).
“Beyond the fact that 46 or 47 million uninsured Americans are forced to play Texas Hold ‘Em with their health care, nearly a third of our health care dollars supports private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork. That’s not health care. That’s waste,” said Sue Kaufman, UPI Local 4100 president.
AFT local 4100 represents faculty and staff in 12 chapters at seven public universities in Illinois. It is affiliated with the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of Teachers, and the AFL-CIO. The Executive Board of the 3,000 member local unanimously approved the endorsement on December 1.
Another AFT affiliated group, the Illinois Federation of Teachers Universities Council, also endorsed HR 676. 30#
HR 676 would institute a single payer health care system in the U.S. by expanding a greatly improved Medicare system to every resident.
HR 676 would cover every person in the U. S. for all necessary medical care including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental, mental health, home health, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision care, chiropractic and long term care. HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.
HR 676 currently has 87 co-sponsors in addition to Conyers. Co-sponsors and bill text are here:
by
Stephen Crockett (128 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:48:54 AM
Excuse me, but Dennnis Kucinich has proposed "Medicare for All" for his whole career! Take a listen to his agenda. You will vote for him when you do. He is the real thing, not a blowhard like the other candidates who are all shills for the lobbyists and big business.
by
Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 241 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 12:44:56 PM
He is unlikely to go up in the polls significantly under our current condensed primary calendar. I honor his support of H.R. 676. It helps the cause of Medicare For All. However, I see no way he can become President in 2008.
The race really looks to be a three person contest between Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Biden and Richardson have better chances than DK at this point.
by
Stephen Crockett (128 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 4:03:31 PM
Under your proposal, if I am GE Medical and I am developing some breakthrough technology that can save lives, how do I get it into the marketplace so it actually does save lives?
I have to convince a Federal bureaucrat that my new technology is worth adding to the Medicare portfolio of services.
Do you think this will improve or degrade the level of technological improvements in medicine? Do you think this will increase or decrease the level of corruption in the system?
Now, if you are astute you are already saying "But that happens today with the FDA". Correct. So we already have a corrupt Federal bureaucracy stifling innovation in healthcare, and your solution is to add another.
Innovation (in any industry) is the only way to continually improve results and decrease costs. Innovation is best fostered by a decentralized organization, and is likewise stifled by a central authority. And, regardless of your opinion on the morality of this statement, innovation is best motivated by personal profit, even in the industry of helping other people. Fact.
by
Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 3:42:18 PM
BS False Flag argument full of disinformation and ideology
First of all, the current system kills people in large numbers. I doubt if innovations that are hypothetical are enough to justify killing people for profit.
Profit motives are dampening innovations currently. If inventions are not profitable financially they do not make it to market currently even if they would save lives.
Your focus on profit is at the core of your failed logic. Innovations that save lives are more likely to be financed and adopted in practice under government control than corporate control. Government will fund them and buy the product solely on the life-saving aspect. Corporations will not. All that matters in the corporate mindset is profit and loss.
by
Stephen Crockett (128 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 4:11:37 PM
understood, thanks for setting me straight. corporations want money, the government wants to help people. got it.
so in their efforts to help people, the government of course won't at all be concerned about money, because they are simply trying to help people. they will spend whatever it takes to cure every disease and heal all injuries. for everybody.
got it. thanks for the help.
by
Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 6:54:47 PM
Government will not be driven by profit. Of course, a concern for cost is not lost when profit is taken out of the economic equation. You have made a false comparison intentally.
The Spin job is obvious to all readers. It makes you look silly and maybe a little deceitful. Do all Right Wingers address issues with the intent to trick with false flag arguments instead of relying on sound logic and fact?
In this single thread I have seen repeated use of false flag arguments. Why? Is you position really that difficult to honestly defend?
by
Stephen Crockett (128 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:58:11 PM
Perhaps "Straw Man arguments" are a more accurate term
Knocking down ideas falsely being associated with H.R. 676 is certainly dishonest but I am unsure of the most accurate label for each particular example of intentional intellectual distortion by the opponents of universal healthcare.
Can anyone provide some guidance in any of these cases?
by
Stephen Crockett (128 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:03:49 PM
Look, you are not even trying to make a point. You are making assumptions about me, putting me in some box, and then attacking me. You are not using logic or debating anything.
The whole point of your article was "We need Medicare for everyone". Why? How? Who cares, its good and we need it. All other solutions are just Band-Aids.
I'll simplify my point too, so you can understand it. You wouldn't have Band-Aids without greedy, profit-driven Capitalists like Robert, James and Edward Johnson.
by
Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 11:45:38 PM
This is a strange line of argument. Are you really trying to state that corporations are less corrupt than government employees? If so, you are blinded by ideology.
Corporations are by nature only profit driven. Government is not. Governments provide services primarily based on public good and the needs of citizens. Corporations only care about money. Sometimes corporations do corrupt government (a fact which is evident under the Bush White House) but it does not really work the other way.
This criticism is pure corporate disinformation and nonsense Right Wing ideology combined. It is illogical.
by
Stephen Crockett (128 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 4:19:24 PM
That's right all you single payer ney-sayers, it won't work. Just like it doesn't work in other countries with better health care rankings than the U.S.
You know, the World Health Organization has ranked our American health care system 37nth. You know that the system of the U.K. is ranked 18nth, and the Canada's is ranked 30th. Now neither one of those systems is great, BUT THEY ARE BETTER THAN OURS!
But, really now, why not look to France for an example, (#1), or Italy, (#2), or even Japan, (#10),?
Any health care system that keeps the for-profit health insurance companies in place is doomed to raise your premiums, raise your deductibles, raise your co-pays and provide less service.
You can download the .PDF on HR 676 at our website at
www.InsuranceTease.com
by
InsuranceTeaseDOTcom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 5:42:55 PM
20 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (