An OLd Liberal " Gets It"

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Now as for the topic at hand. Do you think that national healthcare would have

1. Have customer service like the IRS
2. Fiscal restraint like the defense dept
3. Operational efficiency like FEMA

Sorry -- you're describing the current system, right?

Given a grain of truth to that, I'd take your description (little different from now for many), in return for guaranteed universal coverage, no worries about COBRA, policy denials for preexisting conditions, availability of coverage in the pre-medicare years, community pricing, etc.

Get that in place and we can start working on the customer service part.

 

[saluki9]

Wow, I must be the only person in the US who is happy with their health care.

Sure it's not cheap, but I've had wonderful care in the 4 hospitals I've been to for service along with my friendly internist.

Heck, I even like my insurance company.

 

[donheff]

It's really funny, I didn't notice until about a week ago all of the conservative hating liberals here. I would have guessed (based on my professional observations) that most people who accumulate enough assets to retire early would have to be conservative in general but I was wrong. Either that or it's "I have mine, now you're screwed mentality" a.k.a Cadillac liberals.

We don't hate conservatives. We just don't understand why they think they are better off struggling to make a paycheck with little or no health benefits, Social Security in the gunsights, and the Administration cutting taxes while pouring billions down the wrong rat holes.

I suspect if you were to carefully check, you would find that a disproportionate percentage of liberals are in the upper income ranges. We advocate changes that would COST US MORE through higher taxes. We don't need the changes to make it ourselves, we just want to leave a decent country to our kids. How is that an "I've got mine, now you're screwed mentality?"

 

[bpp]

Now as for the topic at hand. Do you think that national healthcare would have

1. Have customer service like the IRS
2. Fiscal restraint like the defense dept
3. Operational efficiency like FEMA

I'd vote for all three.

Oh for crying out loud, some countries have national healthcare that works just fine. Quit conjuring boogiemen and find some other reason to like or dislike the idea.

 

[saluki9]

Oh for crying out loud, some countries have national healthcare that works just fine. Quit conjuring boogiemen and find some other reason to like or dislike the idea.

Name them.

I think I've found one person from Canada who liked their healthcare system. The rest of them I've met all come to the US and pay cash when they come down with anything more serious than a cold. The same can be said for the British system. My wife has had some health problems in the past. When discussing her issues with a woman from the UK with the same problem she indicated how she had to wait weeks for a doctors appt and wasn't able to get the medication that finally cured my wife because it was considered an off label use and was not allowed under their health system.

 

[saluki9]

We don't hate conservatives. We just don't understand why they think they are better off struggling to make a paycheck with little or no health benefits, Social Security in the gunsights, and the Administration cutting taxes while pouring billions down the wrong rat holes.

I suspect if you were to carefully check, you would find that a disproportionate percentage of liberals are in the upper income ranges. We advocate changes that would COST US MORE through higher taxes. We don't need the changes to make it ourselves, we just want to leave a decent country to our kids. How is that an "I've got mine, now you're screwed mentality?"

I will be the first to admit that there are plenty of republicans who aren't conservatives by any means and are spending like drunken sailors. That being said, I think a lot of it has to do with payback (allocating pork) for all the times many of these districts got screwed while the democrats were running the show.

As for my opinion that many retirees are republicans, that was based on my unscientific study of the accounts I work on (I'm a PM) Most of our clients write some pretty hefty checks each year to Republican causes. In the 6 years I've been doing this I can recall only one to the DNC.

 

[lets-retire]

Wow, I must be the only person in the US who is happy with their health care.

Sure it's not cheap, but I've had wonderful care in the 4 hospitals I've been to for service along with my friendly internist.   

Heck, I even like my insurance company.   

I agree.  Once I got out of the government provided health care, I've had no complainants.  

As far as the Demo vs. Reps being wealthy.  During the last election I noticed most of the Kerry signs were in the yards or on the cars people who are typically the trouble makers in my jurisdiction living in the poorer areas of the city.  The Bush signs were normally seen in the better off areas in yards of those I've never had contact with.  I'm sure this is not true for the entire country, but it is in my neck of the woods.  I think the wealthy Demos are felling guilty for doing well financially.

 

[Martha]

George McGovern's article makes a good point about the unfortunate adversarial relationship between unions and business. Business isn't necessarily the bad guy.

So, instead of having businesses bear the burden of health care costs, let us spread it around to everyone and have a national health care system.  Employment might even go up.  Business owners wouldn't have to try to minimize benefit costs by cutting people to part time or making people "independent contractors." Small business could flourish and attract good employees.   I think national healthcare is good for business.  And I am hearing this from more and more business owners. 

I find it interesting that Walmart is lobbying for increases in minimum wage.  I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up supporting a national healthcare.

The "I've got yours, now you are screwed" mentality seems to fit those who are happy with their health care and won't face the fact, or don't care, that there are millions in this country shut out of the system.

I think the wealthy Demos are felling guilty for doing well financially.

Maybe a little guilt is good for the soul.

 

[razztazz]

I agree.  Once I got out of the government provided health care, I've had no complainants.  

I didn't like Gov provided health care either. But now that I have a government provided medical insurance  policy it's great. Free run of the medical industry just like any private insurance. None of that Gov "company store" BS and I don't have to worry about going broke or getting dropped.

It's like living in America and winning the health care lottery or being in the top 1/10 of 1%! Well almost. I did have to work for it unlike the real Top 1/10 of 1% or winning a regular lottery.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

The "I've got yours, now you are screwed" mentality seems to fit those who are happy with their health care and won't face the fact, or don't care, that there are millions in this country shut out of the system.

New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy:

"Let them eat cake"
 
A saying that shows insensitivity to or incomprehension of the realities of life for the unfortunate. Rousseau, in his Confessions, tells of a great princess who, on being informed that the country people had no bread, replied, “Let them eat cake.” This statement is often, and incorrectly, attributed to Marie Antoinette.

Don't think anyone here would knowingly take that stance, but we need to be careful that as a group of generally prosperous types we don't forget that there are 40 million who don't have insurance. And even here, more than a few have been delayed or derailed by inability to obtain or pay for health insurance.

There seems to be a growing constituency who are realizing that if nothing else, it makes bad economic policy.

 

[lets-retire]

I didn't like Gov provided health care either. But now that I have a government provided medical insurance  policy it's great. Free run of the medical industry just like any private insurance. None of that Gov "company store" BS and I don't have to worry about going broke or getting dropped.

It's like living in America and winning the health care lottery or being in the top 1/10 of 1%!  Well almost. I did have to work for it unlike the real Top 1/10 of 1% or winning a regular lottery.

What do you think you'll receive with gov't paid "all medical all the time"?  I'll clue you in a little:  Not what you now have.

 

[Leonidas]

Wow, I must be the only person in the US who is happy with their health care.

Sure it's not cheap, but I've had wonderful care in the 4 hospitals I've been to for service along with my friendly internist.

Heck, I even like my insurance company.

2003 ABCNEWS/Washington Post Poll found:

Among insured Americans, "...82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

In the same poll, 62% of Americans were in favor of "universal healthcare", but those numbers dropped to 39% if the phrase "with waiting lists for non-emergency treatment" was added, and dropped to 35% if the phrase "with limited choice of doctors" was added.

Sounds like people want universal healthcare, but they want to pick their doctors and don't want to wait for treatment.

Spoke with a friend in Montreal last night and mentioned that I was taking the Princess for a CT scan this morning - I bitched because we had to wait a week. He laughed and told me I had nothing to complain about. The wait times for surgeries and diagnostic tests are usually six months. Anything that requires a specialist, surgery or testing equipment takes forever because the resources are so limited there. If you need to go to the doctor for something minor you're okay, and if you have to go to the ER for something you're probably ok as well. But anything in between (like cancer, hip-replacements, etc.) and you're stuck waiting getting worse or suffering in pain. That's why he took his mother to Vermont for a CT scan last year when she had a persistent abdominal pain.

His view was that the Canadian system worked well up until the last ten - fifteen years and since then it has become a disaster for anybody who is sick. He said the waits in Montreal are even worse if you don't speak French (he's a Francophone), apparently they have several "English speaking" hospitals there. He also said that the provincial government made a promise of a maximum six-month wait for healthcare, but now that they can't pull if off they are considering contracting to a private hospital for outpatient surgeries. He said that people who have been waiting for surgery for almost a year could be seen in just a few weeks. His wife's dad needs cataract surgery and has been on the waiting list for nine months.

My friend didn't sound like he was all that pleased with Canadian healthcare.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Unions and national health care...

German Doctors go on strike

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu.../thousands_of_german_doctors_strike_over_pay/

 

[HFWR]

Don't want gumment healthcare system, but might be satisfied with a universal insurance system.

 

[razztazz]

Don't want gumment healthcare system, but might be satisfied with a universal insurance system.

It's a a shame anybody even needs to bring this up. Where is this wonderful "system" they keep talking about behind the green door?

Where are the free market billionairs that make all things possible and affordable? (as long as an appropriate number to keep profits up are just bulldozed into a ditch, I suppose)

 

[MJ]

In the same poll, 62% of Americans were in favor of "universal healthcare", but those numbers dropped to 39% if the phrase "with waiting lists for non-emergency treatment" was added, and dropped to 35% if the phrase "with limited choice of doctors" was added.

But I wonder of those who were polled, what % were receiving subsidized health insurance through their employer? I suspect most are, so that they could afford to be more cavalier about their disatisfaction with waiting lists and limited doctor choices.

 

[samclem]

I suspect if you were to carefully check, you would find that a disproportionate percentage of liberals are in the upper income ranges. We advocate changes that would COST US MORE through higher taxes. We don't need the changes to make it ourselves, we just want to leave a decent country to our kids. How is that an "I've got mine, now you're screwed mentality?"

It seems a more accurate wording would be: "We advocate changes that require the government to seize money from us and others and to redistribute it." Clearly, everyone is already free to give their own money to others/to charity, etc. One of the main differences between liberals and fiscal conservatives/libertarians is the degree to which they believe the government should be in the wealth redistribution business.

Ready for the next ad hominem attack. That's the first sign that an individual is out of ideas and reverting to what he read on a bumper sticker.

 

[Leonidas]

But I wonder of those who were polled, what % were receiving subsidized health insurance through their employer? I suspect most are, so that they could afford to be more cavalier about their disatisfaction with waiting lists and limited doctor choices.

I don't get it with everyone calling employer provided healthcare "subsidized". Every employer/MBA contract negotiation around here all of those so-called "subsidies" were just below "salaries" and all totalled up down at the bottom under "total cost". In our budget we had to include all of the fringe benefits, including healthcare, as labor costs. When we requested reimbursement from the fed for employees we assigned to work in their task forces, labor costs included healthcare.

I don't see any employer figuring up salaries and then saying "Oh, and here's the healthcare we provided for free in order to subsidize our employees. It takes away from the bottom line, but hey, we love these people!"

It's just part of the compensation package. Most of my compensation comes in the form of salary, some comes in employer matching pension contributions, some in the form of a car and gasoline and paid vacation days, and some in the form of group healthcare. I worked for every bit of that and none of it was given to me.

It's a fringe benefit - not a subsidy.

sub·si·dy Pronunciation (sbs-d)
n. pl. sub·si·dies
1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.
3. Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.


fringe benefit

A payment to a worker in addition to salary or wages. It may take the form of cash, goods, or services, and may include such items as health insurance, pension plans, and paid vacations.

 

[MJ]

I don't get it with everyone calling employer provided healthcare "subsidized". Every employer/MBA contract negotiation around here all of those so-called "subsidies" were just below "salaries" and all totalled up down at the bottom under "total cost". In our budget we had to include all of the fringe benefits, including healthcare, as labor costs. When we requested reimbursement from the fed for employees we assigned to work in their task forces, labor costs included healthcare.

I don't see any employer figuring up salaries and then saying "Oh, and here's the healthcare we provided for free in order to subsidize our employees. It takes away from the bottom line, but hey, we love these people!"

It's just part of the compensation package. Most of my compensation comes in the form of salary, some comes in employer matching pension contributions, some in the form of a car and gasoline and paid vacation days, and some in the form of group healthcare. I worked for every bit of that and none of it was given to me.

It's a fringe benefit - not a subsidy.

sub·si·dy Pronunciation (sbs-d)
n. pl. sub·si·dies
1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.
3. Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.


fringe benefit

A payment to a worker in addition to salary or wages. It may take the form of cash, goods, or services, and may include such items as health insurance, pension plans, and paid vacations.

Perhaps subsidized was the wrong word as you are right that it is a benefit. I don't know if the average person making, let's say $50k with employer supplied insurance would calculate how much his/her insurance would cost them and add the pre-tax amount to their salary. Somehow I think most people would be more aware of the insurance cost if it was coming directly out of their pocket when making $63k where $13k pre-taxed would pay for their insurance. Perhaps they wouldn't mind waiting long or have a limited choice of doctors if the insurance only cost them $5k pre-tax.

 

[eridanus]

That article was hilarious

Typical liberal thinking. Universal healthcare? Sure, why not it will take the burden off of business

Who does he think is going to pay for it? Or should we not worry because it's "free"

We're already paying for it and rather inefficiently at that.

 

[eridanus]

Perhaps subsidized was the wrong word as you are right that it is a benefit.

It's completely subsidized. It's government subsidized.

In other words, not only does the employer pay part or all of health care premiums (especially for dependents) but anything they do pay is deductible. This is why the Economist claimed that the US in fact pays MORE for health care than many "socialist" systems.

 

[Leonidas]

Perhaps subsidized was the wrong word as you are right that it is a benefit. I don't know if the average person making, let's say $50k with employer supplied insurance would calculate how much his/her insurance would cost them and add the pre-tax amount to their salary. Somehow I think most people would be more aware of the insurance cost if it was coming directly out of their pocket when making $63k where $13k pre-taxed would pay for their insurance. Perhaps they wouldn't mind waiting long or have a limited choice of doctors if the insurance only cost them $5k pre-tax.

Most of us are, or have been, guilty of this kind of ignorance. I'm not sure if it's a case of "out of sight - out of mind", or simply that we just want to think it's a freebie and an entitlement. But ignorance is dangerous and we all need to know where the money from all the "hidden costs" in our lives goes. Being ignorant of how all that money leaks out of our pockets and where it goes is like giving someone drafting rights on your checking account. They take a few pennies here and a few there and we don't really notice, but it adds up to a lot of money. Ignorance of the true cost of something like medical care makes for screwed up elasticity in the market - we make buying decisions based on one set of numbers, not realizing the true cost is actually different.

 

[landover]

Will it create a -(5-7)% dip in GDP?

 

[Leonidas]

It's completely subsidized. It's government subsidized.

In other words, not only does the employer pay part or all of health care premiums (especially for dependents) but anything they do pay is deductible. This is why the Economist claimed that the US in fact pays MORE for health care than many "socialist" systems.

I think I understand your point, but I’m not really sure. Is this the article you were speaking about?

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5436968

 

[eridanus]

I think I understand your point, but I’m not really sure. Is this the article you were speaking about?

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5436968

That's the lead article, yes.

"America's health system is a monster. It is by far the world's most expensive: the United States spent $1.9 trillion on health in 2004, or 16% of GDP, almost twice as much as the OECD average (see charts 1 and 2). Health care in America is not nearly as rooted in the private sector as people assume (one way or another, more than half the bill ends up being paid by the state)."

(In the next paragraph, it explains how this came about - government regulation of wage controls forced employers to use health care as an incentive. This was explained by someone else on this board.)

Of course, America does seem to be supporting the world's R&D.

"Set alongside other rich countries, which typically offer all their citizens free (or very cheap) health care financed through taxes, America's system has some clear strengths. Consumers get plenty of choice, and innovation is impressive."

Perhaps one reason our health care is so expensive is because the US, through R&D, is supporting the world with new drugs and treatments? Well, that and insurance companies taking a huge slice.