Single Payer Universal Health Care



S

Sarah

Guest
Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote
single payer Universial Health Care

http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/Health-
CareBrochurePetition.pdf

http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/Health-
CareBroch_NoPetition.pdf

Learn More:
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and
HMOs, institutions that are more bureaucratic and costly
than Medicare. Right now, private companies are charging
about 18% for administration, while the cost of Medicare
administration is only 3%. People are waiting longer for
appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their
choice. Physicians are being given monetary incentives to
deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny
coverage. It's important to understand that insurance
companies make more money by NOT providing health care. A
single-payer system can save money by investing in
preventive care, as well as by cutting out the insurance
companies' profits. Insurance companies do not heal or treat
anyone. Physicians and health practitioners do.

Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease
total health care spending while providing more treatment
and services -- through reductions in bureaucracy and cost-
cutting measures such as bulk purchasing of prescriptions
drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and
Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last year
cost the United States $399.4 billion. The study estimates
that national health insurance could save at least $286
billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the
uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for
everyone in the United States.

How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily from
existing government health care spending (more than $1
trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost
$1 trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already
paying 8.5%, on average. That would raise about $920
billion. In addition to that, there's already over a
trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and
federal dollars for health care. The American people are
already paying for universal health care; they're just not
getting it.

Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has
worked well in other countries, none of which spend as much
per capita on health care as the United States. The cost-
effectiveness of a single-payer system has been affirmed in
many studies, including those conducted by the Congressional
Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has
said: "If the US were to shift to a system of universal
coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in
administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would be more
than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."

Over the years, groups and individuals as diverse as
Consumers Union, labor unions, the CEO of General Motors,
the editorial boards of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and
St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Physicians for a National
Health Program have endorsed a single-payer approach. In the
"Physicians Proposal for National Health Care," 7,782
physicians agreed that "proposals that would retain the
roles of private insurers -- such as calls for tax-credits,
Medicaid/CHIP expansions, and pushing more seniors into
private HMOs -- are prescriptions for failure."

It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading the
Risk" -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier sectors
of our population, thereby putting everyone in one insurance
pool. It permanently saves and improves Medicare, while
eliminating duplicative private and government
bureaucracies.

====================================
Petition to the Democratic Party: We Want Universal Health
Care (you do not have to be a democrat to sign the petition)
http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/petition_text_uhc1.php?s=p
I, the undersigned, approve the establishment of a universal
single-payer national health care system in the U.S.

Such a system will be publicly financed and privately
delivered, allowing people to choose their own health care
providers. The system will provide preventive health care,
dental care, mental health care, and affordable prescription
drugs. This system will make health care available to
everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, status of
employment, or income level.

I urge Democrats to make this resolution a plank in the 2004
party platform.

http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/
 
On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:13:45 -0500, "Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote:

Lot of us are find the current medical care system may be
serving the wrong people. However it is not a party issue.
Making it a one party issue will result in no action except
a band aid approach.

The Medicare Prescription is a great example.

Politicians serve one master and it is usually the ones with
money. Our system requires your vote. So they talk out of
both sides of their mouth.

It will go on until a crisis situation develops and the
finger pointing will dominate.

Unfortunately that time will come too late for people like
me.

The basic question today, is how much of our GNP should be
allocated to medical care.

If any industry loses control they must be reeled in sooner
or late. Greed know no limits. All systems must have
external control since we are not capable of self
regulation. In many aspects of medicine the "free
enterprise" system can not function. The demand price curve
is not elastic. ,

A universal system seem to be the way to go. It will not
happen, Too much profit for some in the present mess.

Most sick people should know how to vote already. But their
ballot will have a hanging chad.

The whole thing is a very sick joke The illness is about all
I can handle but each week I get some external red tape
problem. Enough money for that anyway.

I am reaching the stage where I expect the worst. Wish I
could come back in 200 years and see how the real history is
written Guy;
 
"Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote
> single payer Universial Health Care
>
>
http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/Health-
CareBrochurePetit ion.pdf
>
>
http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/Health-
CareBroch_NoPetit ion.pdf
>
> Learn More:
> http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php
>
> Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms
> and HMOs,
institutions
> that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. Right
> now, private companies are charging about 18% for
> administration, while the cost of Medicare administration
> is only 3%. People are waiting longer for appointments.
> Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice.
Physicians
> are being given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-
> existing illnesses
are
> being used to deny coverage. It's important to understand
> that insurance companies make more money by NOT providing
> health care. A single-payer system can save money by
> investing in preventive care, as well as by
cutting
> out the insurance companies' profits. Insurance companies
> do not heal or treat anyone. Physicians and health
> practitioners do.
>

Except that staying away from care may at times be more
healthy than more and more and more medications.

Physicians posting on TPM constantly declare that
Medicare is inefficient. They claim that the 3% figure
you cite is bogus.

> Non-profit national health insurance will actually
> decrease total health care spending while providing more
> treatment and services -- through reductions in
> bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk
purchasing
> of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard
> Medical School
and
> Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last
> year cost the
United
> States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national
> health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually
> on paperwork, enough to cover
all
> of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug
> coverage for
everyone
> in the United States.
>
> How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily from
> existing government health care spending (more than $1
> trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost
$1
> trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already
> paying 8.5%, on average. That would raise about $920
> billion. In addition to that, there's already over a
> trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and
> federal dollars for health care. The American people are
> already paying
for
> universal health care; they're just not getting it.
>
> Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has
> worked well in other countries, none of which spend as
> much per capita on health care as the United States. The
> cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has
been
> affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the
> Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting
> Office. The GAO has said: "If the US were to shift to a
> system of universal coverage and a single payer, as
in
> Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to
> private insurers)
would
> be more than enough to offset the expense of universal
> coverage."
>
> Over the years, groups and individuals as diverse as
> Consumers Union,
labor
> unions, the CEO of General Motors, the editorial boards
> of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and St. Louis Post
> Dispatch, and Physicians for a National Health Program
> have endorsed a single-payer approach. In the
> "Physicians Proposal for National Health Care," 7,782
> physicians agreed
that
> "proposals that would retain the roles of private insurers
> -- such as
calls
> for tax-credits, Medicaid/CHIP expansions, and pushing
> more seniors into private HMOs -- are prescriptions for
> failure."
>
> It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading
> the Risk" -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier
> sectors of our population,
thereby
> putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently
> saves and improves Medicare, while eliminating duplicative
> private and government bureaucracies.
>
The largest fear of organized medicine in the USA is that
Medicare for all Ages becomes law.
 
I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me
try to add/neutralize some of the extremist portions of your
argument - which inevitably are the downfall of such
opinions as they polarize conversations to either being pro
or anti - whatever, which is often quite counterproductive.

Again, my opinions come from an MD who sees and appreciates
the highlights of BOTH sides of this issue, so be careful of
attacking people in the
middle... since people like me are (or should be) your
target audience...

"Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:u8GdnVZNluheri3dRVn-
[email protected]...
>
> Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote
> single payer Universial Health Care
>
>
http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/Health-
CareBrochurePetition.pdf
>
>
http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/Health-
CareBroch_NoPetition.pdf
>
> Learn More:
> http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

problem #1 - promoting sources of information know to be
nothing more than propaganda machines. Propaganda should
never be used as a source of meaningful information or
insight. It's like saying "OJ was innocent, just read what
his defense attorney had to say!".

> Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms
> and HMOs,
institutions
> that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. Right
> now, private companies are charging about 18% for
> administration, while the cost of Medicare administration
> is only 3%.

Is this really a good thing? Perhaps if medicare had better
(read: more costly) administration, it would not the be easy
target it is right now as the poster child for a poorly run
government organization. Beware those double edged swords.
Medicare is absolutely fraugth with problems.

> People are waiting longer for appointments. Fewer people
> are getting a doctor of their choice.

You later compare the US system to other nations. Are you
aware that in such nations you go to the doctor you have and
that's it. Everything else is done through that individual?
A very difficult system to change MD's and an impossilbe
(virtually) system to "choose your own doctor". Right now,
if I had colon cancer, there is ONE surgeon of the dozens I
personally know who I would go to. I would wait to see her
if need be because there are none better that I know of. We
can do that in the US.

> Physicians are being given monetary incentives to
> deny care.

There are also incentives, including non monetary, to
provide care. A fair and unbiased assessment would compare
those competing forces to determine the net effect. A
difficult task, but a necessary one to advance either side
of this debate in any meaningful manner.

> Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage.

Yes. Will a singler payer change that?

> It's important to understand that insurance companies make
> more money by NOT providing health care. A single-payer
> system can save money by investing in preventive care,

The US government investing in preventative care? You would
need to prove to me that our government has both the
interest and the *ability* to do advance such a topic, since
they currently do an absolutely abysmal job at this.

> as well as by cutting out the insurance companies'
> profits.

Sounds like arranging a government run monopoly to me. How
will you guarantee to us that the government will not just
continue the current abuses and pocket the profits for
themselves? Should we trust this to the "integrity" of our
lawmakers and politicians?

> Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone.

Nor does the government, correct?

> Physicians and health practitioners do.
>
> Non-profit national health insurance will actually
> decrease total health care spending while providing more
> treatment and services

An interesting concept that has been proposed here and
elsewhere a number of times. Those who oppose single payer
can provide some examples of how this will happen and those
that oppose it provide examples of this will not happen. The
fact is, however, we DO NOT KNOW if this will end up costing
more or less money. We do not know if this will increase or
decrease efficiency. We do not know if this will lead to
better or worse care. Comparisons to other country that
perform strict cost control and are excessively regulatory
and micromanaging are obsolete since their societies and
governments operate fundamentally differently.

> -- through reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting
> measures such as bulk
purchasing
> of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard
> Medical School

While a fine institution, anything coming out of that place
needs to be taken with more than a grain of salt since they
are an extremely leftist institution.

> and Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy
> last year cost the
United
> States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national
> health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually
> on paperwork, enough to cover
all
> of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug
> coverage for
everyone
> in the United States.

I'll avoid overly condescending insults at this point.
Suffice it to say, a reasonable person understands that we
can solve the health care crisis by simply cutting
paperwork. In addition, many believe that a government run
healthcare system will lead to more paperwork, not less.

> How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily from
> existing government health care spending (more than $1
> trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost
$1
> trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already
> paying 8.5%, on average. That would raise about $920
> billion. In addition to that, there's already over a
> trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and
> federal dollars for health care. The American people are
> already paying
for
> universal health care; they're just not getting it.

Let me revise that statement - those who are paying for it
actually are getting it. It's those who are NOT paying for
it that are not getting it. That, of course, is an issue
that drives straight to the heart of the philosophical
debate here - how socialist of a country do we want to
become? To what point will America accept redistribution of
wealth? To what point should we? Should we change our
fundamental outlook of "there are no free rides"?

> Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has
> worked well in other countries, none of which spend as
> much per capita on health care as the United States.

As above, comparisons to other countries without somehow
accounting for the fundamental differences in philosophy,
can not succeed and lack meaning. Caning seems to work well
in some other countries ... China has a wealth of organs for
transplantation thanks to the involuntary offering of their
executed "criminals". Just because things are done in other
nations is not, in and of itself, a reason to do it here.

> The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been
> affirmed in many studies,

It can not be until it's been tried. Until then all this
your examples are high paid guesses. I wonder how many
prescriptions could have been paid for by cutting such "task
forces"...

> including those conducted by the Congressional Budget
> Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has
> said: "If the US were to shift to a system of universal
> coverage and a single payer, as
in
> Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to
> private insurers)
would
> be more than enough to offset the expense of universal
> coverage."
>
> Over the years, groups and individuals as diverse as
> Consumers Union,
labor
> unions, the CEO of General Motors, the editorial boards of
> the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and St. Louis Post
> Dispatch, and Physicians for a National Health Program
> have endorsed a single-payer approach. In the "Physicians
> Proposal for National Health Care," 7,782 physicians

8 thousand is not exactly an overwhelming response, since
there are almost
3/4 of a million docs in this country. I think something a
bit more than 1% of docs will be needed for that to have
any significance, don't you?

> agreed that "proposals that would retain the roles of
> private insurers -- such as
calls
> for tax-credits, Medicaid/CHIP expansions, and pushing
> more seniors into private HMOs -- are prescriptions for
> failure."
>
> It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading
> the Risk" -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier
> sectors of our population,
thereby
> putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently
> saves and improves Medicare, while eliminating duplicative
> private and government bureaucracies.
>
> ====================================
> Petition to the Democratic Party: We Want Universal Health
> Care (you do not have to be a democrat to sign the
> petition) http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/petition_text_-
> uhc1.php?s=p I, the undersigned, approve the establishment
> of a universal single-payer national health care system in
> the U.S.
>
> Such a system will be publicly financed and privately
> delivered, allowing people to choose their own health care
> providers. The system will provide preventive health care,
> dental care, mental health care, and affordable
> prescription drugs. This system will make health care
> available to
everyone,
> regardless of pre-existing conditions, status of
> employment, or income level.
>
> I urge Democrats to make this resolution a plank in the
> 2004 party
platform.
>
> http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/
 
"Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote
> single payer Universial Health Care
>
>
http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/Health-
CareBrochurePetition.pdf
>
>
http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/Health-
CareBroch_NoPetition.pdf
>
> Learn More:
> http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php
>
> Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms
> and HMOs,
institutions
> that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. Right
> now, private companies are charging about 18% for
> administration, while the cost of Medicare administration
> is only 3%. People are waiting longer for appointments.
> Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice.
Physicians
> are being given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-
> existing illnesses
are
> being used to deny coverage. It's important to understand
> that insurance companies make more money by NOT providing
> health care. A single-payer system can save money by
> investing in preventive care, as well as by
cutting
> out the insurance companies' profits. Insurance companies
> do not heal or treat anyone. Physicians and health
> practitioners do.
>
> Non-profit national health insurance will actually
> decrease total health care spending while providing more
> treatment and services -- through reductions in
> bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk
purchasing
> of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard
> Medical School
and
> Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last
> year cost the
United
> States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national
> health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually
> on paperwork, enough to cover
all
> of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug
> coverage for
everyone
> in the United States.
>
> How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily from
> existing government health care spending (more than $1
> trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost
$1
> trillion).

Then, unless you are going to charge it all to just one
employer, it isn't really "Single Payor" now, is it?

--
For 35 years I made a very good living in politics. I'll
probably spend the rest of my life praying for forgivness
for participating in such a sleazy profession.

Brooks Gregory
 
"Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily from
> existing government health care spending (more than $1
> trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost
> $1 trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already
> paying 8.5%, on average. That would raise about $920
> billion. In addition to that, there's already over a
> trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and
> federal dollars for health care. The American people are
> already paying for universal health care; they're just not
> getting it.

> It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading
> the Risk" -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier
> sectors of our population, thereby putting everyone in one
> insurance pool. It permanently saves and improves
> Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and
> government bureaucracies.

It is cost shifting - plain and simple. It eliminates any
possibility for individuals to select the type of health
coverage they want and the services they want to access. >

> Such a system will be publicly financed

Funded by progressive taxes?

> and privately delivered, allowing people to choose their
> own health care providers.

Sure - choose all you want - rom that group willing to play.
And how exactly is the government going to control
expenditures? Administrative savings?. Sure - federal
bureaucracies adminisratively efficient? Since when?

> The system will provide preventive health care, dental
> care, mental health care, and affordable prescription
> drugs. This system will make health care available to
> everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, status of
> employment, or income level.

It will need to tax the **** out of hard working America to
pay for **** they neither want or need and limit access to
the things they really want and need.

All so the 42 million uninsured can get insurance? Wouldn't
it be a lot easier just to subsidize poor peoples insurance
premiums rather than drag all of us into a system that has
not worked well in any country?

> I urge Democrats to make this resolution a plank in the
> 2004 party platform.

And I urge anyone with a modicum of sense not to elect an
administration hell bent on cratering the a system of health
care that works just fine for everyone - other than the ones
relying on the government, that is.

Save Medicare by making young people share the cost? isn't
it enough already that we pay 1.45% of every dollar we earn
into a program that we will never use?

Great stuff this Medicare.

js
 
A socialist spammer... Thinks the answer's to be found... In
big government.

--
I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address.
Remove the string "HatesSpam" from this email address before
you use it: [email protected]

Ever wonder what it'd be like to be a blood-sucking
parasite? http://tinyurl.com/7wxk
 
Skeptic wrote:
> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let
> me try to
<snipped for brevity)

You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one. Medicare
overhead is a very small fraction of overhead of prepaid
health plans.

The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide most of
the health care in the US is incredibly inefficient.

--
"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as
history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls
observing from the present" Glen Cook
 
Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>
> Skeptic wrote:
>> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let
>> me try to
> <snipped for brevity)
>
> You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
> Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead of
> prepaid health plans.
>
> The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide most
> of the health care in the US is incredibly inefficient.
>
>
And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs are
computed very differently for government and private
entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they are
very close.
 
"mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ted Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > Skeptic wrote:
> >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but
> >> let me try to
> > <snipped for brevity)
> >
> > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
> > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
> > of prepaid health plans.
> >
> > The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide
> > most of the health care in the US is incredibly
> > inefficient.
> >
> >
> And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs
> are computed very differently for government and private
> entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they
> are very close.
>

Plus, if you look at the federal budget, you will discover
that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread
over several different line items.

--
For 35 years I made a very good living in politics. I'll
probably spend the rest of my life praying for forgivness
for participating in such a sleazy profession.

Brooks Gregory
 
It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6

Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than
for Medicare.

Brooks Gregory wrote:
> "mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:205sc.53060$hH.995373@bgtnsc04-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>>>Skeptic wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but
>>>>let me try to
>>>
>>><snipped for brevity)
>>>
>>>You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
>>>Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead of
>>>prepaid health plans.
>>>
>>>The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide most
>>>of the health care in the US is incredibly inefficient.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs
>>are computed very differently for government and private
>>entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they
>>are very close.
>>
>
>
> Plus, if you look at the federal budget, you will discover
> that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread
> over several different line items.
>
>

--
"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as
history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls
observing from the present" Glen Cook
 
Ted Rosenberg wrote:
> It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6
>
> Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than
> for Medicare.

Administrative costs are computed very differently for
government and private entities. When they are figured on
the same basis, they are very close.

Do it yerself. Go to the 10Ks for private insurors and
figure the percentage of premium revenue that does not go to
providers. Very simple. Now go the the federal budget and
figure the percentage of Title
XVIII/XIX funding that does not go to providers. Not so
simple, but doable.

Report the results here.
 
"Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone.

And neither does the government, or trial lawyers. They
drive up costs much more than insurance companies.

> Non-profit national health insurance will actually
> decrease total health care spending while providing more
> treatment and services -- through reductions in
> bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk
purchasing
> of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard
> Medical School
and
> Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last
> year cost the
United
> States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national
> health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually
> on paperwork, enough to cover
all
> of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug
> coverage for
everyone
> in the United States.

Then explain why government run Medicare is rapidly
going bankrupt.

> How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily from
> existing government health care spending (more than $1
> trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost
$1
> trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already
> paying 8.5%, on average. That would raise about $920
> billion. In addition to that, there's already over a
> trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and
> federal dollars for health care. The American people are
> already paying
for
> universal health care; they're just not getting it.

Promises, promises. All lies. The government promised
Medicare would cost only 1/10th of what it actually does.

You just can't believe the government when it's looking to
expand its power and control over our lives.

> Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has
> worked well in other countries, none of which spend as
> much per capita on health care as the United States. The
> cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has
been
> affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the
> Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting
> Office. The GAO has said: "If the US were to shift to a
> system of universal coverage and a single payer, as
in
> Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to
> private insurers)
would
> be more than enough to offset the expense of universal
> coverage."

Again, explain why the single payer Medicare system is
going bankrupt.

> It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading
> the Risk" -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier
> sectors of our population,
thereby
> putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently
> saves and improves Medicare, while eliminating duplicative
> private and government bureaucracies.

Why does Medicare need to be saved if it's so wonderful?

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."
 
On Sun, 23 May 2004 10:22:44 -0700, Bob Blaylock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> A socialist spammer... Thinks the answer's to be found...
> In big government.

Which is what the current government is trying, not
socialism. Bush upped spending 500 billion.
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It will need to tax the **** out of hard working America
> to pay for **** they neither want or need and limit access
> to the things they really want and need.
>
> All so the 42 million uninsured can get insurance?
> Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to subsidize poor peoples
> insurance premiums rather than drag all of us into a
> system that has not worked well in any country?

Just happened upon this thread.

FYI we are ALREADY paying for those who have no insurance.
That is why medical expenses are so over inflated now. Poor
and non-paying, non-insured people get medical care just
like those who have insurance.

Our insurance premiums are higher than they should be, and
our medical expenses are higher than they should be.... it
is necessary in order to pay for those who don't have
insurance.

Better it should be upfront and honest and available to
everybody.

--
Regards, Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
 
"Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sL3sc.100033$xw3.5955167@attbi_s04...
> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let
> me try to add/neutralize some of the extremist portions of
> your argument - which inevitably are the downfall of such
> opinions as they polarize
conversations
> to either being pro or anti - whatever, which is often
> quite counterproductive.
>
> Again, my opinions come from an MD who sees and
> appreciates the highlights of BOTH sides of this issue, so
> be careful of attacking people in the
> middle... since people like me are (or should be) your
> target audience...
>
>
MDs have created a system good for providers, not
patients. No matter what is proposed you will pick it
apart as not good enough so there will be no change.
Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with
cash or what can be begged.
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily
> > from existing government health care
spending
> > (more than $1 trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers
> > of 7.7% (almost
$1
> > trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already
> > paying 8.5%, on average. That would raise about $920
> > billion. In addition to that,
there's
> > already over a trillion dollars being spent a year in
> > local, state and federal dollars for health care. The
> > American people are already paying
for
> > universal health care; they're just not getting it.
>
>
> > It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading
> > the Risk" -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier
> > sectors of our population,
thereby
> > putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently
> > saves and
improves
> > Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and
> > government bureaucracies.
>
> It is cost shifting - plain and simple. It eliminates any
> possibility for individuals to select the type of health
> coverage they want and the services they want to access. >
>

More drivel. The costs of medicine in the USA are not
even close to free market. They are administered costs
and you pay what is asked. You get access to physicians
based on where they want to live, not where care is
needed. Your only choice is to quit your job and move to
where doctors want to have practices. Otherwise, do
without. If you want access, you have to give up your
life and move to where they want you.
 
"Bob Blaylock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A socialist spammer... Thinks the answer's to be
> found... In big government.
>
>
And you think that monopoly medicine provides any
alternatives? There are NONE. Pay what is asked or get
lost. That is your solution: twice as expensive and
getting more so. You spam for the rich.
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Save Medicare by making young people share the cost? isn't
> it enough already that we pay 1.45% of every dollar we
> earn into a program that we will never use?

Actually, it's 2.9%. You just don't see the part the
employer pays because it's pre-stolen.

According to the trustees of Medicare, "Projected Medicare
costs would exceed those for Social Security in 2024."

We're paying 15% for Social Security now. Do the math
yourself.
 
Skeptic wrote:

> > Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage.
>
> Yes. Will a singler payer change that?
>

With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so how
can there be a pre-existing condition?

Jon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back