What exact freedoms would we be loosing. Currently in the US, Insurance companies decide if you get a procedure paid for. The Companies deny coverage for a lot of procedures.
Ummmm .hate to break it to you ... but the US Government is currently the number one insurer in American .. it's called Medicare. AND ... Medicare is the NUMBER ONE denier of coverage of procedures, drugs, etc.!!!
Your statement doesn't prove anything. Do you have information that Medicare is more restrictive regarding the treatments it allows than insurance companies? Does Medicare find an excuse to drop you because of previous illness, like insurance companies do? You are making all of this stuff up on the fly.
The Freedom that GirlC is talking about is the ability to have one's own insurance that has a better track record than the Medicare.
Manged Care is NEVER a good thing. Decisions should be made between patients and doctors. Insurance shouldn't be in the business of providing healthcare, it should be in the business of protecting against catestrophic loss due to catestrophic heatlhcare cost ... like treating cancer, or a surgery.
This assumes that all doctors are ethical. In fact about 30% of health care dollars are spent on overtreatment. Whatever you believe about insurance, it is desireable to have preventive care to avoid the need for catastrophic problems where this is possible. Every good casualty insurance company has a preventive program. Your statement is just wrong. It is just conservative rant.
I get sick and tired of Liberals and their utopian position that healthcare is some sort of "right". You have a right to own a gun .. but you don't have a right to have someone else pay for it. Likewise, you have a right to buy healthcare coverage, or healthcare insurance. The smart person will opt for healthcare INSURANCE .. the old 20/80 plan with a decuctible. BUT .. Noooo .. Americans want someone esle to pay. They've been "hood winked" by the glitz of the $20 copay. For those who can't buy their own premium, I'd suggest a low cost public system, that utilizes all those cheap generics and out dated procedures. I mean ... if they have no healthcare at all .. the old stuff .. which does work in most cases .. though not as convenient and with plenty of side effects ... is a step up!!!
There is nothing utopian about it.Government funded health care is normal in industrialized countries, has resulted in lower cost and superior health for its citizens.
I pesonally would like to see many major disease states solved and cures created. If the entire world goes to socialized, managed care style medicine, .. you can kiss that idea good bye. Innovations are sought with the hopes of selling those products in the free market of the US. Take that away, and you will see research slow to a crawl. I mean, who do you think is going to pay for it ... the Government??? They are already running deficits. Where are they going to come up with 50 Billion to fund medical research!!! .. answer .. they aren't. [AND .. NO .. they are NOT the ones funding medical research ... that is a pure fabrication of the left].
There is a problem with your rant here. In the US the National Institutes of Health spends $30B on research. Another case where the your statements are not in accordance with the facts. The UK has just spent Lb 250M on a new research building.
And the church all said AMEN! eadler gave excellent points. The only thing I might add to it is just this.... People will exploit the ignorant. Under any type of insurance care, if the individual doesn't play an active role in managing his health care, all types of abuses can flourish. What this means is that the individual must stay on top of his game to prevent things like over medication, duplicate treatments for the same disease by a GP and specialist, or being prescribed meds that contraindicate another creating bigger problems. The one big difference I noticed was in how my mother was treated by the same doctor the rest of the family uses. He actually was allowed to spend more time with her in the exam room. In mine or other members of the family who are on private insurance, if we had 15 minutes to discuss something with him, we were lucky. With mom, he actually spent time with her, and made more thorough exams. Due to mom's altered mental status, we were in the room with her, and took an active role in her treatments. As such, we were able to prevent a lot of over medicating, and unnecessary tests that run through managed care facilities like a summer fire. Also there is no such thing as a "lifetime cap" on treatments for a legitimate disease under Medicare (or Medicaid for that matter) as there is with private insurance. And in a case such as mine, where I have a coronary artery condition (I've had angioplasty) there are no clauses for pre existing condition exclusions with Medicare as there was under the old private insurer's programs.
It isn't about waiting for the storms to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
What exact freedoms would we be loosing. Currently in the US, Insurance companies decide if you get a procedure paid for. The Companies deny coverage for a lot of procedures.
Ummmm .hate to break it to you ... but the US Government is currently the number one insurer in American .. it's called Medicare. AND ... Medicare is the NUMBER ONE denier of coverage of procedures, drugs, etc.!!!
Your statement doesn't prove anything. Do you have information that Medicare is more restrictive regarding the treatments it allows than insurance companies? Does Medicare find an excuse to drop you because of previous illness, like insurance companies do? You are making all of this stuff up on the fly.
The Freedom that GirlC is talking about is the ability to have one's own insurance that has a better track record than the Medicare.
Manged Care is NEVER a good thing. Decisions should be made between patients and doctors. Insurance shouldn't be in the business of providing healthcare, it should be in the business of protecting against catestrophic loss due to catestrophic heatlhcare cost ... like treating cancer, or a surgery.
This assumes that all doctors are ethical. In fact about 30% of health care dollars are spent on overtreatment. Whatever you believe about insurance, it is desireable to have preventive care to avoid the need for catastrophic problems where this is possible. Every good casualty insurance company has a preventive program. Your statement is just wrong. It is just conservative rant.
I get sick and tired of Liberals and their utopian position that healthcare is some sort of "right". You have a right to own a gun .. but you don't have a right to have someone else pay for it. Likewise, you have a right to buy healthcare coverage, or healthcare insurance. The smart person will opt for healthcare INSURANCE .. the old 20/80 plan with a decuctible. BUT .. Noooo .. Americans want someone esle to pay. They've been "hood winked" by the glitz of the $20 copay. For those who can't buy their own premium, I'd suggest a low cost public system, that utilizes all those cheap generics and out dated procedures. I mean ... if they have no healthcare at all .. the old stuff .. which does work in most cases .. though not as convenient and with plenty of side effects ... is a step up!!!
There is nothing utopian about it.Government funded health care is normal in industrialized countries, has resulted in lower cost and superior health for its citizens.
I pesonally would like to see many major disease states solved and cures created. If the entire world goes to socialized, managed care style medicine, .. you can kiss that idea good bye. Innovations are sought with the hopes of selling those products in the free market of the US. Take that away, and you will see research slow to a crawl. I mean, who do you think is going to pay for it ... the Government??? They are already running deficits. Where are they going to come up with 50 Billion to fund medical research!!! .. answer .. they aren't. [AND .. NO .. they are NOT the ones funding medical research ... that is a pure fabrication of the left].
There is a problem with your rant here. In the US the National Institutes of Health spends $30B on research. Another case where the your statements are not in accordance with the facts. The UK has just spent Lb 250M on a new research building.
Let me shed some light for you, CharikIeia. LvBear's hubby was caught up in something called double dipping. It was a plan hatched up during Ronald Regan's first term in office to help stabilize Social Security. Reagan made the argument that Social Security was a government hand out.... Not a form of savings mandated by the government. Mind you, you aren't given a choice of having deductions taken out or not.
The Social Security Act was designed to help those who worked for companies that did not provide retirements of any sort to employees. Thanks to unions who began to put retirement provisions into union contracts, retirement programs soon began to develop. Then the idea was to use Social Security to add to the retirement income of people after they retired. My father, for example received less than $100. a month on a retirement plan provided by his company. It was one that he did not pay into. And consequently, his Social Security simply added on to it. Now companies offer IRA's as a form of retirement, and they match worker contributions. This too has no effect on a person's Social Security benefits. What LvBear's husband got caught up in is a civil service retirement. Had he paid at least 40 quarters into Social Security, he probably would have gotten a reduced income. Or what probably happened, as did a friend of mine in the same boat as LvBear's husband, failed to pay into Social Security for 10 years or more.
This friend of mine had to take an early retirement from his state job due to a very bad heart condition. The amount of retirement he would have gotten from the state due to his age, and length of service was just about enough (in lifetime earnings) to pay off his home. He opted for a lump sum payment not knowing that his Social Security was cut off, and he could not qualify for it, even though he had paid in the minimum of 40 quarters. He also did not, under the old status-quo qualify for Medicaid, and being only in his early 50's did not qualify for medicare. No longer being an employee of the state, he did not have the insurance he had then either. Considering the pre-existing condition. a heart that really qualifies for a transplant, he could not get private insurance either. This was an instance where he and his family were dropped through the government cracks. The new health care bill is definitely a well needed benefit for him Now I don't know LvBear's particular circumstance, but I'd be willing to bet her husband fell through a similar crack.
Here's where things get screwed up, at least IMO. We pay into the system.... We pay our 40 quarters, yet for some reason we don't qualify? This is a mandatory savings account set up and run by Congress. What they see is a guaranteed piggy bank they can take from and drop off an IOU with no definite time line to repay the loan. Congress has taken and taken to the point where now, the Social Security system has reached the point of insolvency. Rather than repaying the debt, they have devised ways to make it harder for those who have paid into it to recoup their money. I read just recently that the Social Security administration has begun to recall those IOU's, and from my perspective, it high time they did.
This system that went into play during the Regan years affects people who still have retirements paid by the company they work(ed) for, as well as civil service (Congress and Senate excluded of course) and the military. My military retirement will be reduced once I turn 67 and begin to draw my Social Security; providing we still have a Social Security system in place to draw from. Then too, maybe now that we have a new lease on life with the health care overhaul, perhaps we can urge our Congressmen/women to revamp Social Security, and recoup what we have invested in some way.
Thanks for explaining, johnacancienne!
This really is dysfunctional. I personally think that the terminology of "building up by paying in" creates wrong expectations. These are not savings accounts, apparently, but just government budget posts - and as such subject to everything government may be involved in. A clean decision would be to fund this type of pensions through taxes, instead of pea-counting individual contributions with a huge bureaucratic effort, with many opportunities where things can go wrong. When ultimately, ad hoc decision can override this bureaucratic effort anyway, why engage in it at all?
Well. Either that (which may amount to what Americans call "socialism"), or return to a functioning administration of the individual savings... Will the Reagan bill be cancelled anytime soon? I'd think that pensions are the next big domestic policy effort Obama might want to address, after health care...
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity” - Abraham Lincoln.
What exact freedoms would we be loosing. Currently in the US, Insurance companies decide if you get a procedure paid for. The Companies deny coverage for a lot of procedures.
Ummmm .hate to break it to you ... but the US Government is currently the number one insurer in American .. it's called Medicare. AND ... Medicare is the NUMBER ONE denier of coverage of procedures, drugs, etc.!!!
The Freedom that GirlC is talking about is the ability to have one's own insurance that has a better track record than the Medicare.
Manged Care is NEVER a good thing. Decisions should be made between patients and doctors. Insurance shouldn't be in the business of providing healthcare, it should be in the business of protecting against catestrophic loss due to catestrophic heatlhcare cost ... like treating cancer, or a surgery.
I get sick and tired of Liberals and their utopian position that healthcare is some sort of "right". You have a right to own a gun .. but you don't have a right to have someone else pay for it. Likewise, you have a right to buy healthcare coverage, or healthcare insurance. The smart person will opt for healthcare INSURANCE .. the old 20/80 plan with a decuctible. BUT .. Noooo .. Americans want someone esle to pay. They've been "hood winked" by the glitz of the $20 copay. For those who can't buy their own premium, I'd suggest a low cost public system, that utilizes all those cheap generics and out dated procedures. I mean ... if they have no healthcare at all .. the old stuff .. which does work in most cases .. though not as convenient and with plenty of side effects ... is a step up!!!
I pesonally would like to see many major disease states solved and cures created. If the entire world goes to socialized, managed care style medicine, .. you can kiss that idea good bye. Innovations are sought with the hopes of selling those products in the free market of the US. Take that away, and you will see research slow to a crawl. I mean, who do you think is going to pay for it ... the Government??? They are already running deficits. Where are they going to come up with 50 Billion to fund medical research!!! .. answer .. they aren't. [AND .. NO .. they are NOT the ones funding medical research ... that is a pure fabrication of the left].
There's a little something in the Constitution about promoting the general welfare. It's right in there with domestic tranquility and providing for the common defence. Maybe you missed it. If you take a look around you at countries with Universal Health, you'll find that their citizens actually outlive us here in the US, and have fewer illnesses, and should they have a catastrophic illness, don't grow sicker wondering if they'll have to file for bankruptcy or loose their homes to pay for it.
The rest of your rant isn't even worth commenting on.
It isn't about waiting for the storms to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
John, I do not listen to Rush or Beck (and, why can't people debate with those that disagree with them without throwing that out there...just makes one look like you don't have an argument).
Actually, I tossed that cookie out there, because the garbage you've given for an argument just plain don't hold water. Quite frankly, it appears that you've only gotten information from them, and many, (most) people are following Rush's advice he gave over the radio during the Clinton first term. He stated, over the air, mind you, "Don't think! I'll do your thinking for you."
As I said on my first reply, I couldn't access the site you posted. However, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts you didn't even bother looking at the site I've posted. Had you bothered to look at it, it would have answered your statement about stuff not being discussed.
I do however work for a not-for-profit whose sole purpose is fighting for access to health care for all. The "issues" with this reform aren't being discussed in the media or by the administration because they're afraid of losing support. However, they are being discusses among those of us who have been doing this for awhile and can the very real issues coming down the pike from this. One big one is we already have docs refusing to take Medicaid patients (and in some areas, that significantly limits ones "choice of whichever doc they want") and now that we're adding to that group, you'll see more docs who no longer have appts available for new Medicaid patients. You'll start to see waits in areas because of this. Add that to the fact that we do not now and it's only getting worse, have enough primary doctors and you have an issue that this reform doesn't fix. That's just one issue that is seriously being looked at by those "in the know."
Well, the AMA endorsed, so did nurses unions across the country, as well as AARP. They endorsed it, GC. So how can they be against something they've endorsed? This tells me that more doctors are for the plan than against. One thing that does puzzle me though is how the Republican party could turn it's back on the plan that is currently in place? Considering that this is the exact same plan that the Republicans put together to counter the health care plan that Clinton wanted. Amazing ain't it?
One of the things you'll be noticing is that it isn't going to be all about medicare, and then too, what is won't affect doctor payments in the least. Now there will be a lot of redundancy stopped, and a lot of fraud and waste ended. I can recite you scripture and verse fraudulent billing from places like physical rehab facilities, and nursing homes of actually non medical stuff used as additives to food, or vitamins that are totally unnecessary and high billing value that medicare and cade pay for without blinking. A good example.... I lost my mother in February due to a brain hemorrhage which caused seizures. It was a seizure that in fact killed her. She had a history of strokes.... through the years, she had several of what is known as TIA's, or mini strokes. There was no lasting damage, so rehab wasn't actually necessary. In May of last year, she had a pretty severe stroke, and she lost her ability to swallow from it. After a brief stint in the hospital, we placed her in a rehab unit for both physical therapy (to regain some use of her extremities affected by the CVA) and for speech therapy to help her relearn how to swallow. During this time, she was fed through a Peg Tube. She was given extra protein at about $25.00 a can on top of the high protein diet she was set on by a dietitian. The dietitian was not aware of this extra stuff.... She was given something to stimulate her appetite. I'm not sure of the cost of this, but was told by an aide at the rehab that it was expensive, and Medicaid and care didn't question it when they gave it. She was also placed of some medicine (an anti-psychotic) that kept her dozing off constantly. But she sat in their tv room dozing her time away, and was no trouble for them. Stuff like this will stop under the new program. Doctors, and most of them know this; at least all of the doctors in my community do, that their billing will go much smoother, and there won't be so much haggling with these agencies for their money they deserve. In fact, they expect the fees to be increased over time when the abuse of the system is taken care of.
Here's a freedom you'll lose: the freedom to not buy health insurance (or buy a high deductible HSA instead)
Again, I don't know where you get your information, but it's false. It has been stated over and over and over and over time and time again that this isn't going to happen. Now as far as the fines being given for those people who don't buy insurance either individually, or through an employee based program goes.... The insurance companies aren't too happy with what was made law. The reason? They don't think the fines are stiff enough. Imagine that! This is a big deal for insurance companies, GC, and they are all for this program. It's like car insurance.... They are going to be writing policies!
Small busines is going to benifit from this plan. The will receive subsidies (tax breaks) to perhaps for the first time be able to provide insurance for their employees. People who are self employed will be able to buy affordible coverage through these co-ops that will be springing up.
The way I see it, it's a win/win situation all around. Again, begs the question... why are the Republicans against something they proposed in the 90's? Could it be nothing more than sour grapes, and they feel that by blocking any good thing that comes along, it will get them back into power? Try asking Rush or Glenn that on the air. You'll get cut off in a micro-second. Next you might try to find more well rounded news... at least listen to both sides and make up your own mind rather than just take the word of people who distort facts to suit their purposes.
It isn't about waiting for the storms to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
What exact freedoms would we be loosing. Currently in the US, Insurance companies decide if you get a procedure paid for. The Companies deny coverage for a lot of procedures.
Ummmm .hate to break it to you ... but the US Government is currently the number one insurer in American .. it's called Medicare. AND ... Medicare is the NUMBER ONE denier of coverage of procedures, drugs, etc.!!!
The Freedom that GirlC is talking about is the ability to have one's own insurance that has a better track record than the Medicare.
Manged Care is NEVER a good thing. Decisions should be made between patients and doctors. Insurance shouldn't be in the business of providing healthcare, it should be in the business of protecting against catestrophic loss due to catestrophic heatlhcare cost ... like treating cancer, or a surgery.
I get sick and tired of Liberals and their utopian position that healthcare is some sort of "right". You have a right to own a gun .. but you don't have a right to have someone else pay for it. Likewise, you have a right to buy healthcare coverage, or healthcare insurance. The smart person will opt for healthcare INSURANCE .. the old 20/80 plan with a decuctible. BUT .. Noooo .. Americans want someone esle to pay. They've been "hood winked" by the glitz of the $20 copay. For those who can't buy their own premium, I'd suggest a low cost public system, that utilizes all those cheap generics and out dated procedures. I mean ... if they have no healthcare at all .. the old stuff .. which does work in most cases .. though not as convenient and with plenty of side effects ... is a step up!!!
I pesonally would like to see many major disease states solved and cures created. If the entire world goes to socialized, managed care style medicine, .. you can kiss that idea good bye. Innovations are sought with the hopes of selling those products in the free market of the US. Take that away, and you will see research slow to a crawl. I mean, who do you think is going to pay for it ... the Government??? They are already running deficits. Where are they going to come up with 50 Billion to fund medical research!!! .. answer .. they aren't. [AND .. NO .. they are NOT the ones funding medical research ... that is a pure fabrication of the left].
With a Roth IRA, you don't pay up front taxes, but when you go to use it, you're taxed on it then, and pay out a Social Security tax to boot.
Great contributions ... but I wanted to make sure you were clear on a the Roth IRA. The Roth is After Tax contributions, thus you pay no taxes on it, nor do you pay taxes on dividends etc. that are earned. The goal of the Roth from the gov.s perspective was immediate tax income. That is why they threw in the cookie of no taxes on dividends to encourage people to particpate.
I understand why people are concerned about Universal Health Insurance. They fear lose of what they have now. Lose of Social Security. Potential Bankruptcy of programs currently in place. The problem is other countries in the world do have universal health coverage, social security, and seem to be doing well. German has had Universal Health Coverage for over 40 years. Currently Germany has lots of Money in their Treasure, and their population out live the US population by a number of years. In fact the US is 28th in life expectancy of the top 30 industrialized nations of the world. Germany is in the top 10. The US has the best health care system in the world?? Doubtful.
The great state of Hawaii also has universal health care. They have had Universal Health Coverage for over 40 years. I will bet anyone, the Hawaiians will not give the coverage up and will punish politically any politician that will try to remove the coverage.
The obvious question is...If it works their why can't it work here? Could it be we, USA, are being hood winked by the ones who stand lose with Universal coverage, The Insurance Companies??!!
Germans pay 8% of their income towards their health insurance, not as a tax, but as the cost for their premiums and their employers pay an additional 8% per employee. They also allow an opt-out for civil servants and those that make more than $72,000. Their government doesn't provide provide health care or finance it, they regulate insurance companies. They also have an issue with how they pay their docs and docs not getting paid regularly, according to an NPR article, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st....
OK, you picked on Germany, so let's talk about Germany. I tried pulling up your site you offered, but it couldn't be found. So I've taken this from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_c... I've highlighted parts of this article that seems to contradict what you've suggested.
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883. As mandatory health insurance, it originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover the great majority of the population. The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care. Approximately 92% of the population is covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.
Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physician's associations and sickness funds. Since 1976 the government has convened an annual commission, composed of representatives of business, labor, physicians, hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The commission takes into account government policies and makes recommendations to regional associations with respect to overall expenditure targets. In 1986 expenditure caps were implemented and were tied to the age of the local population as well as the overall wage increases. Although reimbursement of providers is on a fee-for-service basis the amount to be reimbursed for each service is determined retrospectively to ensure that spending targets are not exceeded. Capitated care, such as that provided by U.S. health maintenance organizations, has been considered as a cost containment mechanism but would require consent of regional medical associations, and has not materialized. Copayments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization and control costs. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the U.S. (5 to 6 days). The difference is partly driven by the fact that hospital reimbursement is chiefly a function of the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or the patient's diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).
You've stated that the average worker pays 8% of his wages for insurance coverage. IOW, in USD, .$08 out of every dollar earned (and I understand they aren't paid in US dollars) would go toward health insurance. Interesting; here in the US it would be much higher. Depending upon such things as pre-existing conditions, or the employer's contribution, as much as fifty cents on the dollar could go into insurance cost here, and then, the insurance company would have the right to exclude some tests if it deemed them unnecessary. In the case of pre-existing conditions, if an individual could obtain insurance, it might not cover this condition in question for a period of two years or more. If you go to the wiki site, you will see the status of every industrialized nation who has universal health care, and see the cost versus the cost from the old system the U.S. dealt with.
Now, none of that means that people would throw away their system, but I don't want to adopt a system that has its own issues. There is no reason we can't come up with a system that addresses the need without taking away freedoms.
I acknowledge that Catbox answered this question, and did a fine job of it too, but could you perhaps be just a little more specific about exactly which particular freedom I stand to loose with this health care package? From where I sit, Catbox is right in the respect that the only freedom I stand to loose is my freedom to be sick. Personally, I don't mind giving up that right.
It sounds to me like you've been listening to a lot of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Here's something that hasn't received all of the attention it ought to be receiving. Hopefully it will open a few eyes in regard to the scare tactics the opposition has been using on gullible citizens regarding health care and other problems we've been hearing about lately.
Rachel calls bull-pucky www.msnbc.msn.com
John, I do not listen to Rush or Beck (and, why can't people debate with those that disagree with them without throwing that out there...just makes one look like you don't have an argument).
I do however work for a not-for-profit whose sole purpose is fighting for access to health care for all. The "issues" with this reform aren't being discussed in the media or by the administration because they're afraid of losing support. However, they are being discusses among those of us who have been doing this for awhile and can the very real issues coming down the pike from this. One big one is we already have docs refusing to take Medicaid patients (and in some areas, that significantly limits ones "choice of whichever doc they want") and now that we're adding to that group, you'll see more docs who no longer have appts available for new Medicaid patients. You'll start to see waits in areas because of this. Add that to the fact that we do not now and it's only getting worse, have enough primary doctors and you have an issue that this reform doesn't fix. That's just one issue that is seriously being looked at by those "in the know."
Here's a freedom you'll lose: the freedom to not buy health insurance (or buy a high deductible HSA instead)
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
I understand why people are concerned about Universal Health Insurance. They fear lose of what they have now. Lose of Social Security. Potential Bankruptcy of programs currently in place. The problem is other countries in the world do have universal health coverage, social security, and seem to be doing well. German has had Universal Health Coverage for over 40 years. Currently Germany has lots of Money in their Treasure, and their population out live the US population by a number of years. In fact the US is 28th in life expectancy of the top 30 industrialized nations of the world. Germany is in the top 10. The US has the best health care system in the world?? Doubtful.
The great state of Hawaii also has universal health care. They have had Universal Health Coverage for over 40 years. I will bet anyone, the Hawaiians will not give the coverage up and will punish politically any politician that will try to remove the coverage.
The obvious question is...If it works their why can't it work here? Could it be we, USA, are being hood winked by the ones who stand lose with Universal coverage, The Insurance Companies??!!
Germans pay 8% of their income towards their health insurance, not as a tax, but as the cost for their premiums and their employers pay an additional 8% per employee. They also allow an opt-out for civil servants and those that make more than $72,000. Their government doesn't provide provide health care or finance it, they regulate insurance companies. They also have an issue with how they pay their docs and docs not getting paid regularly, according to an NPR article, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st....
OK, you picked on Germany, so let's talk about Germany. I tried pulling up your site you offered, but it couldn't be found. So I've taken this from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_c... I've highlighted parts of this article that seems to contradict what you've suggested.
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883. As mandatory health insurance, it originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover the great majority of the population. The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care. Approximately 92% of the population is covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.
Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physician's associations and sickness funds. Since 1976 the government has convened an annual commission, composed of representatives of business, labor, physicians, hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The commission takes into account government policies and makes recommendations to regional associations with respect to overall expenditure targets. In 1986 expenditure caps were implemented and were tied to the age of the local population as well as the overall wage increases. Although reimbursement of providers is on a fee-for-service basis the amount to be reimbursed for each service is determined retrospectively to ensure that spending targets are not exceeded. Capitated care, such as that provided by U.S. health maintenance organizations, has been considered as a cost containment mechanism but would require consent of regional medical associations, and has not materialized. Copayments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization and control costs. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the U.S. (5 to 6 days). The difference is partly driven by the fact that hospital reimbursement is chiefly a function of the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or the patient's diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).
You've stated that the average worker pays 8% of his wages for insurance coverage. IOW, in USD, .$08 out of every dollar earned (and I understand they aren't paid in US dollars) would go toward health insurance. Interesting; here in the US it would be much higher. Depending upon such things as pre-existing conditions, or the employer's contribution, as much as fifty cents on the dollar could go into insurance cost here, and then, the insurance company would have the right to exclude some tests if it deemed them unnecessary. In the case of pre-existing conditions, if an individual could obtain insurance, it might not cover this condition in question for a period of two years or more. If you go to the wiki site, you will see the status of every industrialized nation who has universal health care, and see the cost versus the cost from the old system the U.S. dealt with.
Now, none of that means that people would throw away their system, but I don't want to adopt a system that has its own issues. There is no reason we can't come up with a system that addresses the need without taking away freedoms.
I acknowledge that Catbox answered this question, and did a fine job of it too, but could you perhaps be just a little more specific about exactly which particular freedom I stand to loose with this health care package? From where I sit, Catbox is right in the respect that the only freedom I stand to loose is my freedom to be sick. Personally, I don't mind giving up that right.
It sounds to me like you've been listening to a lot of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Here's something that hasn't received all of the attention it ought to be receiving. Hopefully it will open a few eyes in regard to the scare tactics the opposition has been using on gullible citizens regarding health care and other problems we've been hearing about lately.
Rachel calls bull-pucky www.msnbc.msn.com
It isn't about waiting for the storms to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
