This one of the most important social issues now facing America domestically. As He said;
Quote:
"Insurance coverage is down. Costs are up. And America is heading to the bottom of the league of major nations in important measures of the quality of care,"
Kennedy said.
This is becoming all to true and a big embarrassment for a country which asserts to be so generous.
Code:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government should join the state of Massachusetts in enacting universal health coverage, said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over numerous health issues.
Kennedy's home state is the first to require everyone to have health insurance, just as drivers must have automobile coverage.
Kennedy has his own version of what universal health coverage would look like. He wants to extend Medicare to all. In his first hearing Wednesday as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Massachusetts Democrat called on 10 witnesses from all over the country to talk about how to make health care more affordable.
"Insurance coverage is down. Costs are up. And America is heading to the bottom of the league of major nations in important measures of the quality of care," Kennedy said.
Kennedy emphasized how Democratic legislators in his home state worked last year with Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in crafting universal coverage there. He wants the same spirit of compromise to take hold in Congress.
However, the hearing also showed that finding agreement won't be easy. While all the witnesses agreed that health care is becoming less affordable every year, they often had polar opposite solutions.
For example, the Business Roundtable renewed its calls to change medical liability laws and for the federal government to give consumers more information about the cost and quality of the care they get, two priorities often cited by the Bush administration.
"High health care costs are affecting job creation, and high health care costs are hurting our ability to compete in global markets," said Larry Burton, the roundtable's executive director.
But Andrew Stern, international president of the Service Employees International Union, called for much more dramatic change. He told lawmakers that it's time to recognize that employer-based coverage "is dead." The statement infers a much more active role for the federal government in funding health care.
Karen Davis of the Commonwealth Fund, which conducts health research, told lawmakers to look at Denmark as a model for the U.S. She said that nation's government pays doctors a capped rate for each of their patients, plus additional amounts when they perform a service. Each doctor handles about 1,500 patients, and they can handle walk-ins and same-day appointments. Doctors are also readily available during the off-hours, too, she said. And Denmark residents love their health care system, she said.
Experts: Don't get in way of states
Most of the witnesses agreed on two points:
First, Congress should expand funding for a health insurance program that now provides health insurance to about 5 million children. The children live in families that make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford the monthly health insurance premiums offered through the private sector.
Second, Congress should not get in the way of states trying to expand the number of their residents who have health insurance.
The state of Massachusetts employs a combination of subsidies and penalties to make insurance more affordable and to force people to buy it. The law requires employers with 11 or more full-time employees to offer health coverage or be subject to a $295 fee for each employee, as well as face being billed for services their uninsured employees get.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week proposed a plan that would extend health care to 6.5 million uninsured Californians. Under the proposal, all Californians must have insurance, although the poorest would be subsidized.
Some of the committee's Republicans would like the committee to renew its attention to help for small businesses. They support a plan that would let businesses buy insurance through regional or national trade associations. The insurance would be free of many state mandates. That could make it a cheaper alternative, but would also provide scaled-back coverage in some instances.
"My primary interest is to provide health insurance reform for small businesses and working families, and I believe that 1 million more people will be insured if we enacted the (small business health plans)," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming.
The quasi-socialist/interventionist health care system fucking up? I have the solution! Just assign the blame to "capitalist health care," knowing the moron voters won't check the facts, and use the problems that central planning and state intervention have created in order to justify even more central planning and interventions!
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:46 pm
offsprng46 wrote:
The quasi-socialist/interventionist health care system fucking up? I have the solution! Just assign the blame to "capitalist health care," knowing the moron voters won't check the facts, and use the problems that central planning and state intervention have created in order to justify even more central planning and interventions!
Its a conspiracy I tell yeah.
You really must be bored to be such a troll.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:41 am
Offspring is absolutely right. One of the major reasons health coverage costs so much is government meddling. One of the ways it could help, Tort reform, it isn't even doing. Sure people should be able to sue when there is legitimate carelessness but there will be honest mistakes and real risks--that should be taken into account.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:12 am
Saitou wrote:
Offspring is absolutely right. One of the major reasons health coverage costs so much is government meddling.
That is a lie. It is because of greed in the corporate sector overcharging and fraud. Countries that have UHC don't have nearly the costs that the USA has with its primarily privately run system.
Quote:
One of the ways it could help, Tort reform, it isn't even doing. Sure people should be able to sue when there is legitimate carelessness but there will be honest mistakes and real risks--that should be taken into account.
It is up here and that is why malpractice suits aren't a real problem.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:20 am
sjc wrote:
Saitou wrote:
Offspring is absolutely right. One of the major reasons health coverage costs so much is government meddling.
That is a lie. It is because of greed in the corporate sector overcharging and fraud.
Why aren't these same forces increasing prices for other goods and services then? Why is auto and life insurance reasonably priced? A large part of the reason is because the consumer is encouraged to find their own provider and pay for it themselves in those other cases.
sjc wrote:
Countries that have UHC don't have nearly the costs that the USA has with its primarily privately run system.
The costs are masked in taxes and rationing. Rationing and waiting lists are a high price to pay.
Quote:
One of the ways it could help, Tort reform, it isn't even doing. Sure people should be able to sue when there is legitimate carelessness but there will be honest mistakes and real risks--that should be taken into account.
sjc wrote:
It is up here and that is why malpractice suits aren't a real problem.
I don't know the details of your legal system on this one (nor my own very much as I'm not a lawyer) but if Canada's legal system isn't as screwed up as ours then I envy you that one.
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:02 am
I see the cries of tort reform in the US to be a diversionary tactic deliberately designed by neoconservatives to distract from the fact they are on the take with the drug and insurance industries.
It's an excellent diversion because it's in fact a miniscule part of the problem, plus everyone has heard the story about how the Virgin Mary sued McDonald's for 117 trillion dollars because an employee looked at her askance.
CET Master of Logic
Joined: Apr 03, 2003
Posts: 5636
Location: SoCal, USA
Posted:
Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:22 am
Saitou wrote:
Offspring is absolutely right. One of the major reasons health coverage costs so much is government meddling.
I don't know much about government meddling, but hospitals and insurance companies over-charging in order to get kick-backs is absolutely rampant and out of control. Of course this contributes greatly to making insurance premiums ridiculously expensive and out of reach for many.
_________________ "Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Shakyamuni Buddha
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:06 am
Saitou wrote:
Why aren't these same forces increasing prices for other goods and services then?
You can't outsource healthcare, and it isn't from lack of trying. You have a choice if you want a buy a car, you don't have a choice if you need serious medical care. You can liveout with a car, take public transit, you can't live without a needed operation...
Quote:
Why is auto and life insurance reasonably priced?
Who says? Those costs are going up as well.
Quote:
A large part of the reason is because the consumer is encouraged to find their own provider and pay for it themselves in those other cases.
Its the same with health insurance in America, it is just that the insurer will refuse, or overcharge if you have a pre-existing condition. Cars only have to pass a safety inspection, they don't even have to have an engine in them at the time of inspection. As long as the lights, and brakes work, and the body isn't full of holes it'll pass.
Quote:
The costs are masked in taxes and rationing. Rationing and waiting lists are a high price to pay.
Not as high as not even being able to get even that far. Plus, those things are being fixed here as well so using that as an excuse is still quite lame. Wait times also depend on provincial population as well. Our waiting times are going down while yours are going up. America is falling WAY behind in quality of life and this will cost you far more down road. A healthy population is a more productive one, though the way things are going in the USA even that won't matter.
Quote:
I don't know the details of your legal system on this one (nor my own very much as I'm not a lawyer) but if Canada's legal system isn't as screwed up as ours then I envy you that one.
Losers in a court case have to pay the costs of both sides, and there is a limit on the amount one can sue another for as well. With our health system a large settlement is not really needed.
CET Master of Logic
Joined: Apr 03, 2003
Posts: 5636
Location: SoCal, USA
Posted:
Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:38 pm
sjc wrote:
Losers in a court case have to pay the costs of both sides, and there is a limit on the amount one can sue another for as well. With our health system a large settlement is not really needed.
That's an idea the Libertarian Party has written out in their official platform. Can I get an, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," outta you?
_________________ "Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Shakyamuni Buddha
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:21 pm
As I've said in a post quite some time ago in the IG forums I think UHC will come to the US. Even though the Republicans did lose much in part because they increased the size of government and spending to a large extent the situation is:
As the country gets richer people who often think of society as "we" in a binding political sense--
--and with obligations (and I fully understand the libertarian objections to having an obligation thrust upon us all) to do the very least of what we think is decent--
--Americans believe that everyone should have access to the medical care they need.--
--Even though many of us think it is not a right and that each of us should pay for the services that we receive
Since I think UHC is inevitable in the USA I sometimes look at the best ways such a thing an be run. This is because I know that if the government runs it all the quality will be poor, the choices limited, and the costs high with much waste.
That's an idea the Libertarian Party has written out in their official platform. Can I get an, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," outta you?
We mainly used British common law throughout our history. So, it is probably the other way around. We use it and yet we still embrace many of the things that libertarians hate as well.
As I've said in a post quite some time ago in the IG forums I think UHC will come to the US. Even though the Republicans did lose much in part because they increased the size of government and spending to a large extent the situation is:
As the country gets richer people who often think of society as "we" in a binding political sense--
--and with obligations (and I fully understand the libertarian objections to having an obligation thrust upon us all) to do the very least of what we think is decent--
--Americans believe that everyone should have access to the medical care they need.--
--Even though many of us think it is not a right and that each of us should pay for the services that we receive
Since I think UHC is inevitable in the USA I sometimes look at the best ways such a thing an be run. This is because I know that if the government runs it all the quality will be poor, the choices limited, and the costs high with much waste.
Yet our health care system doesn't suffer from the lack of quality as much as some would like to believe. BTW, we do pay for the services we receive, it is just that it is done in an indirect way (sales taxes, sin taxes, lotteries, etc..) that doesn't cost us much out of pocket without the worry of premiums going up, being canceled, nor losing everything we own because of medical bills. It actually costs us far less than your system costs you. With all of those different insurers in the USA (Over 1500 I think) it creates a bureaucracy and waste bigger than there would be from a government.
This morning I had to go to the hospital for some
MORE
blood tests, because I'm getting my thyroid gland regulated, and all I had to do is pass them my NS Health Card and I was in and out within an hour.
There's that broken clock again, as CET mentioned. In other words adapt a system like Canada's.
CET Master of Logic
Joined: Apr 03, 2003
Posts: 5636
Location: SoCal, USA
Posted:
Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:32 am
sjc wrote:
CET wrote:
That's an idea the Libertarian Party has written out in their official platform. Can I get an, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," outta you?
We mainly used British common law throughout our history. So, it is probably the other way around. We use it and yet we still embrace many of the things that libertarians hate as well.
That's exactly where the Libertarians got the idea. Now, can I get a "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," outta you now?
_________________ "Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Shakyamuni Buddha
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:31 am
CET wrote:
That's exactly where the Libertarians got the idea. Now, can I get a "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," outta you now?
Why? We had it first and yet it is still compatible with our evil socialistic ways.
There were some things about libertarianism that I had liked when I was first looking into it, but once I got a little deeper
I had seen that it wasn't all that great after all. In other words, we're not that ones with the broken clock....
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You have a choice if you want a buy a car, you don't have a choice if you need serious medical care. You can liveout with a car, take public transit, you can't live without a needed operation...
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file