Americans Want Universal Health Care [Archive]

HBox

06-08-2006, 10:45 PM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/07/universal.coverage.ap/index.html" target="_blank">.... guaranteed by the federal government, according to a bipartisan Congressional Committee.</a>"Assuring health care is a shared social responsibility," says the
interim report of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, a 14-member
committee that went to 50 communities and heard from 23,000 people.The
committee describes its recommendations as a framework. The
recommendations don't say who would pay for universal health coverage
or how much it would cost. The concept of government-guaranteed
coverage runs counter to the Bush administration's position that
consumers should bear more responsibility for their initial medical
expenses.... George Grob, the executive director of the Citizens' Health Care
Working Group, said the group was not asked to say specifically how to
get to universal coverage. However, the group did recommend that
financing strategies be based on principles of fairness and shared
responsibility. The strategies should draw on revenue streams such as
enrollee contributions, income taxes, so-called "sin taxes" and payroll
taxes, the report said."We're already paying for health care for
everybody who gets it, including people who don't have health insurance
coverage who are taken care of when they go to the hospital," Grob said. Well duh, is what I say, although I'm sure the massive support will erode a bit once they start to figure out how to pay for it, like everything. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/07/universal.coverage.ap/index.html" target="_blank"></a>

zentraed

06-08-2006, 11:18 PM

I've always thought of health savings accounts as a great way towards universal health care. The way they're setup, you pay a monthly premium (I'm young, so it's like $35-$40), and then anything above a few thousand dollars (I'm also single) and the insurance company covers all of it. In a given year, the most I could pay would be say $6,000. $6,000*280million = $1.68 trillion which is close to what we spend each year on health care in this country ($1.4bil in 2001). Just give everyone an account. Employers can donate and cover premiums and the government can subsidize the poor.For the record, I hate Bush and just about every idea he's ever presented to the public, but I like HSAs...

HBox

06-08-2006, 11:55 PM

A problem with HSAs is that people who are chronically ill will have to find $6,000 (or however much the out of pocket limit is, that's one of the more generous HSAs I've ever heard of) a year, every year, on top of co-pays and premiums. They know this, and there is nothing they can do to lower the costs they incur. The biggest problem is that it combats some of the most minor problems of the current health care system (overuse of healthcare services, supposed consumer ignorance of health care costs) and does not address the biggest problems of the current system (administrative costs).My personal biggest problem with them is that it maintains the current paradigm of health care as an insurance industry. I think we need to move beyond it, as it makes it more of a business about bottom line, giving insurance providers every incentive NOT to pay. The whole idea of "pre-exisiting conditions" is reprehensible to me. Does someone really deserve to be penalized for contracting a condition while not insured? Are they not deserving of coverage? This is something that I fear will not be done away with unless the federal government steps in in some way and guarantees either a base level of coverage for all or covers all catastrophic illnesses to defray the costs to the insurance companies of the people who require the highest costs.Another reason I hate HSAs is that its a stealth way to pass on more health care costs to the sickest, who are already struggling under current, more generous traditional insurance plans. And it is sold by making it more attractive to the healthy, letting them take their money out of the risk-sharing pool, therefore making everything more expensive for the sick, as I mentioned. The only way HSAs work when dealing wtih a long term chronic condition is if a person has been enrolled in a HSA for a long period of time, continually saving up a large amount of money. Get sick earlier? Screwed. Not saving enough? Screwed. It's a very tenuous system. So I'm not a fan, just to sum it up if you didn't want to read that thesis. 

This message was edited by HBox on 6-9-06 @ 3:55 AM

zentraed

06-09-2006, 01:19 AM

HBox wrote: A problem with HSAs is that people who are chronically ill will have to find $6,000 (or however much the out of pocket limit is, that's one of the more generous HSAs I've ever heard of) a year, every year, on top of co-pays and premiums. They know this, and there is nothing they can do to lower the costs they incur. The biggest problem is that it combats some of the most minor problems of the current health care system (overuse of healthcare services, supposed consumer ignorance of health care costs) and does not address the biggest problems of the current system (administrative costs).Another reason I hate HSAs is that its a stealth way to pass on more health care costs to the sickest, who are already struggling under current, more generous traditional insurance plans. So I'm not a fan, just to sum it up if you didn't want to read that thesis. 

This message was edited by HBox on 6-9-06 @ 3:55 AM   I agree that "pre-existing conditions" and "life-long expenditure" limits are ridiculous concepts. But I think the major point I was trying to make about HSAs and Universal Health Care in general is this: If everyone in the country signed up for an HSA and was given up to $6,000 a year (if you're married with 2 kids, that's $24,000. More than enough to cover deductibles, premiums, copays, etc.), there would be no additional out-of-pocket expenses left, we would be spending the same amount we're spending now. Administrative costs would instantly decline as only money beyond the first $6,000 would require any attention from the insurance companies (who wouldn't have the option not to pay), emergency room visits for routine care would decline, the poor would have access to the system. The risk is still shared in that everyone is paying premiums and there is also interest being collected from the healthy that could be utilized.For the sickest of the sick (there's that pre-existing condition thing again), an HSA would actually convert their health bill into a fixed cost.I don't know how we're going to transform the mess of a system that we have,  but hopefully we'll elect a president who cares next time around. How the healthcare industry has seen rising administrative costs while we've gone through the Information Revolution defies belief. The most frustrating thing though is we spend more than enough money to provide for everyone, and we're failing miserably with our 40+ million uninsured. The fat thing isn't helping either.

A.J.

06-09-2006, 04:41 AM

Report doesn't say who would pay for such a plan, or its costOf course not.

cupcakelove

06-09-2006, 04:53 AM

A.J. wrote: Report doesn't say who would pay for such a plan, or its costOf course not.
It would be with taxes, every wonder why taxes in Canada are so
high? Its not that bad, I'm already paying close to about $70
a month. That comes out to about $840 a year, so an increase that
much in my taxes doesn't bother me at all if I can drop the plan I have
now. 


This message was edited by cupcakelove on 6-9-06 @ 8:55 AM

cupcakelove

06-09-2006, 04:54 AM

oops

This message was edited by cupcakelove on 6-9-06 @ 8:54 AM

JamMaster

06-09-2006, 05:17 AM

zentraed wrote:  HBox wrote: A problem with HSAs is that people who are chronically ill will have to find $6,000 (or however much the out of pocket limit is, that's one of the more generous HSAs I've ever heard of) a year, every year, on top of co-pays and premiums. They know this, and there is nothing they can do to lower the costs they incur. The biggest problem is that it combats some of the most minor problems of the current health care system (overuse of healthcare services, supposed consumer ignorance of health care costs) and does not address the biggest problems of the current system (administrative costs).Another reason I hate HSAs is that its a stealth way to pass on more health care costs to the sickest, who are already struggling under current, more generous traditional insurance plans. So I'm not a fan, just to sum it up if you didn't want to read that thesis. This message was edited by HBox on 6-9-06 @ 3:55 AM    I agree that "pre-existing conditions" and "life-long expenditure" limits are ridiculous concepts. But I think the major point I was trying to make about HSAs and Universal Health Care in general is this: If everyone in the country signed up for an HSA and was given up to $6,000 a year (if you're married with 2 kids, that's $24,000. More than enough to cover deductibles, premiums, copays, etc.), there would be no additional out-of-pocket expenses left, we would be spending the same amount we're spending now. Administrative costs would instantly decline as only money beyond the first $6,000 would require any attention from the insurance companies (who wouldn't have the option not to pay), emergency room visits for routine care would decline, the poor would have access to the system. The risk is still shared in that everyone is paying premiums and there is also interest being collected from the healthy that could be utilized.For the sickest of the sick (there's that pre-existing condition thing again), an HSA would actually convert their health bill into a fixed cost.I don't know how we're going to transform the mess of a system that we have,  but hopefully we'll elect a president who cares next time around. How the healthcare industry has seen rising administrative costs while we've gone through the Information Revolution defies belief. The most frustrating thing though is we spend more than enough money to provide for everyone, and we're failing miserably with our 40+ million uninsured. The fat thing isn't helping either. Don't even get me started with "pre-existing condtions" .  My insurance company completely SCREWED me with my back surgery with that F$%^ing Bull#h1t.time to breath now

HBox

06-09-2006, 10:54 AM

For the sickest of the sick (there's that
pre-existing condition thing again), an HSA would actually convert
their health bill into a fixed cost.Most traditional insurance plans do have out-of-pocket limits which are much lower than HSAs. Which means you've only increased the fixed cost. And there really isn't an exact fixed cost. With copays for drugs and doctors visits, which aren't counted toward the out-of-pocket limits, it always means an added, uncertain cost. I have a question. Are the out-of-pocket limits and deductibles for HSAs the same thing? In other words, do you have to pay 100% of costs up to that $6,000, and then the HSA pays everything above that, or is there a deductible where you pay 100% up to that, and then a percentage of the costs the rest of the way to $6,000.And there is one more concern. With the huge deductible/out-of-pocket limits in HSAs, doctors and hospitals will know that the patient will likely be fully responsible for all costs. So in certain situations (non-life threatening) like regular doctor's vists or tests, payment may be asked for up front. And if the patient doesn't have it? This is rarely a concern under traditional plans, since with low dedcutibles they know that for 99% of visits or tests that even if they don't get a dime from the patient, they will get whatever percentage the insurance company pays. If they don't get a dime from the patient under an HSA, they get zip most of the time.

UnknownPD

06-09-2006, 11:08 AM

Does someone really deserve to be penalized for contracting a condition while not insured? Absolutely....the whole point is the law of large numbers...simply stated you spread the risk. Exempting pre-exisiting conditions would be like buying car insurance after the accident. Exemptions reward irresponsible behavior. You don't support the system only drain from it when you want to use it.

Doctor Manhattan

06-09-2006, 11:17 AM

<a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/forum/87/topic/50629">Americans Want Universal Health Care</a> Americans also want to be multi-millionaires

HBox

06-09-2006, 11:21 AM

UnknownPD wrote:  Does someone really deserve to be penalized for contracting a condition while not insured?  Absolutely....the whole point is the law of large numbers...simply stated you spread the risk. Exempting pre-exisiting conditions would be like buying car insurance after the accident. Exemptions reward irresponsible behavior. You don't support the system only drain from it when you want to use it.  Which is exactly why health care should not be viewed as an insurance problem. What if a child is born with an illness? Is that irresponsible? What if someone develops diabetes between jobs while they are uninsured? Is that irresponsible? You don't want to treat the human body like it's something as trivial as a car. The only way you'd have even a slight point is if health insurance was widely available and easily affordable, which it absolutely isn't.

FezPaul

06-09-2006, 11:40 AM

The only way you'd have even a slight point is if health insurance was widely available and easily affordable, which it absolutely isn't. Translation: The only way you'd have even a slight point, is if you agree with HBox's opinions.

HBox

06-09-2006, 11:46 AM

FezPaul wrote: The only way you'd have even a slight point is if health insurance was widely available and easily affordable, which it absolutely isn't. Translation: The only way you'd have even a slight point, is if you agree with HBox's opinions.  Over 40% of Americans are uninsured. Why do you think that is?

ChimneyFish

06-09-2006, 11:49 AM

I really don't know if there is a real solution to this problem, but here's my horrible situation:The insurance my work used to offer is personal choice. It's very good, and expensive(about $800 a month). About four years ago my boss decided he couldn't afford to insure the workers anymore. So, I got another job. Worked towards insurance, but the company ended up folding. I went back to my old work, because I get payed fairly well. After a little while there, my mom got sick and passed. Needless to say, I wasn't working much, and while not working, I slipped on some ice.That was over two years ago. There is something torn in my knee. My days are filled with nothing but pain. I'm unable to work 40 hours a week. Luckily my boss understands my situation, and is good enough to let me work when I'm able.A few months ago, I tried to see if there was any way I could get some help from the state.(you can stop laughing now) Basically, I'm supposed to make too much. At what I make an hour, I should be able to afford insurance. I know this, but I can't come close to putting 40 hours in. For some reason, the people I talked to can't seem to understand the logic in that.So, here I am. Stuck between a rock and and a worthless healthcare system. I know it doesn't make sense to burden everyone with higher taxes, so those of us who can't afford it, can get care. I just don't see any viable solution to this.And with every pain filled day, the taste of metal begins to seem that much sweeter.

FezPaul

06-09-2006, 11:50 AM

HBox wrote:  FezPaul wrote: The only way you'd have even a slight point is if health insurance was widely available and easily affordable, which it absolutely isn't. Translation: The only way you'd have even a slight point, is if you agree with HBox's opinions.   Over 40% of Americans are uninsured. Why do you think that is? Because almost 60% are."There are three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies, and statistics.-Mark Twain

HBox

06-09-2006, 11:55 AM

FezPaul wrote: HBox wrote: FezPaul wrote: The only way you'd have even a slight point is if health insurance was widely available and easily affordable, which it absolutely isn't. Translation: The only way you'd have even a slight point, is if you agree with HBox's opinions. Over 40% of Americans are uninsured. Why do you think that is? Because almost 60% are."There are three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies, and statistics.-Mark Twain  I'm not going to argue with someone who's too cowardly to make any particular point.

FezPaul

06-09-2006, 11:58 AM

HBox wrote:  FezPaul wrote: HBox wrote:  FezPaul wrote: The only way you'd have even a slight point is if health insurance was widely available and easily affordable, which it absolutely isn't. Translation: The only way you'd have even a slight point, is if you agree with HBox's opinions.   Over 40% of Americans are uninsured. Why do you think that is? Because almost 60% are."There are three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies, and statistics.-Mark Twain  I'm not going to argue with someone who's too cowardly to make any particular point. I did make my point.

HBox

06-09-2006, 12:01 PM

FezPaul wrote: HBox wrote: FezPaul wrote: HBox wrote: FezPaul wrote: The only way you'd have even a slight point is if health insurance was widely available and easily affordable, which it absolutely isn't. Translation: The only way you'd have even a slight point, is if you agree with HBox's opinions. Over 40% of Americans are uninsured. Why do you think that is? Because almost 60% are."There are three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies, and statistics.-Mark Twain I'm not going to argue with someone who's too cowardly to make any particular point. I did make my point.  A quote from someone who's been dead for nearly 100 years is not a point. All you did was dismiss something you didn't want to deal with.

FezPaul

06-09-2006, 12:05 PM

HBox wrote:  FezPaul wrote: HBox wrote:  FezPaul wrote: HBox wrote:  FezPaul wrote: The only way you'd have even a slight point is if health insurance was widely available and easily affordable, which it absolutely isn't. Translation: The only way you'd have even a slight point, is if you agree with HBox's opinions.   Over 40% of Americans are uninsured. Why do you think that is? Because almost 60% are."There are three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies, and statistics.-Mark Twain  I'm not going to argue with someone who's too cowardly to make any particular point. I did make my point.  A quote from someone who's been dead for nearly 100 years is not a point. All you did was dismiss something you didn't want to deal with. I have health insurance. There, I've dealt with it.

HBox

06-09-2006, 12:08 PM

Whatever, this is obviously headed nowhere.

FezPaul

06-09-2006, 12:11 PM

HBox wrote: Whatever, this is obviously headed nowhere. http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f281/FezPaul/canadianflag-sm.jpg

Recyclerz

06-09-2006, 01:43 PM

Well, I guess it's time to break out the old  eco textbook and remind everybody that all human endeavors can be (although I'm not saying they should be) reduced to the following principle - how to maximize utility when you have limited resources and unlimited wants.  I think that we can agree that most people, given the choice, would prefer to live rather than die. And that most of us would want to spend whatever it took give the best chance to stay alive for ourselves, or more accurately, our loved ones, regardless of where the cost/benefit scale was pointing.  But if we spent all our resources on healthcare we wouldn't have anything left to dedicate to other essentials like housing and internet porn.  So we have to accept at a high level that heathcare is going to be rationed.  The Big Question we face as a society is are we going to ration it based on ability to pay or some other method?I think most people would agree that the current system is stupid on many levels. (Everybody, that is, except those who are currently getting rich from it like the CEO at United Health who let the board give him $1.6 B-B-B-Billion in stock grants and options.) I'm torn as to which direction I'd like to see the country move:  the H-Box model of single payer insurance where everybody is "entitled" to a certain level of care but that limits the high end care to those who can afford to go outside the system  or the HSA model where the patient is supposed to ration his/her own care for the "little" stuff to keep overall costs down while still spreading the catastrophic risk amongst the whole population.  I think we need to experiment at the state level for awhile to see what works best.

HBox

06-09-2006, 03:03 PM

I'm torn as to which direction I'd like to see
the country move:  the H-Box model of single payer insurance where
everybody is "entitled" to a certain level of care but that limits the
high end care to those who can afford to go outside the system  or the
HSA model where the patient is supposed to ration his/her own care for
the "little" stuff to keep overall costs down while still spreading the
catastrophic risk amongst the whole population.  I think we need to
experiment at the state level for awhile to see what works best.Just to clarify, I don't neccessarily endorse a single-payer solution (meaning that the government would pay for all healthcare expenditures). I think there can be a role for private insurance, but that in some role the government must ensure that every citizen has access to health coverage. I just think the solution has to be very different from the current system, and I don't think HSAs are it. HSAs don't address the problems that are making health care costs soar, and simply increase the burden that the sick have to bear.

furie

06-09-2006, 04:02 PM

i like the system we have now

Gvac

06-09-2006, 04:33 PM

End all Health Care! We need to thin the herd!

CuzBum

06-09-2006, 04:36 PM

"Universal Health Care"<img src="http://augustachronicle.com/images/headlines/081703/10257_256.jpg" border="0" />

SatCam

06-09-2006, 05:29 PM

This is the best idea since Social Security. I can't wait!

ADF

06-09-2006, 06:44 PM

I know that I would sleep better if my (very much higher) taxes were paying to keep people like HBox alive. I believe that the vast majority of physicians would love to be able to never turn down a patient due to inability to pay. However, I have little faith in the ability of the government to effectively administrate the finances of such a system. The "I've got mine, go screw yourself" attitude of many Americans (as evidenced in this very thread) and the power of insurance lobbyists doesn't help the matter. I'm afraid it's going to take very small steps and I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. 

This message was edited by ADF on 6-9-06 @ 10:44 PM

epo

06-09-2006, 07:18 PM

I work in the provider end of the industry (and Ron has his own radio show) and let me tell you the issue is so complicated it's unbelievable.  The only thing everyone would agree on is that the current system is absolutely unfair and broken for patients and providers.  (But not for insurers!)Let me say that no politician will get their arms around this issue until they can get re-imbursement rates set up properly for the provider.  Until then, nothing will get done.  And you if think the rates that medicare & medicaid pay are paying the pills.....they aren't.  So if a politician is talking about their plan for national health care....listen closely they are either "pie in the sky" people or blowing hot air up your ass.And let me cut this off at the pass, I work for a non-profit provider.  We don't make big money.  Quite frankly our society has to decide where it chooses to spend it's money.  As long as this country spends 20-25% of our national budget on the military, our government can't afford real health care.   And in my book health care is not a gift, but a basic human right.  I only wish this was an easy issue.