No, thats not happening right now. Businesses that are currently offering healthcare insurance packages are doing so, for the most part, at the cost of the employee. Businesses only pay a part of the premium. The amount that they do pay is only in consideration to what they feel is necessary to retain that employee vs costs of replacing him/her. Employees in what are considered "low skilled, expendable" positions are shuffled on an work schedule that ensures that they are not eligible for healthcare insurance (reference the recent Walmart issue). These employees are dumped onto the government funded system. So not only are employers not required to provide the coverage, they don't have any incentive to do so in a lot of cases. That would depend on how a universal system is funded. But what about the unemployed or unemployable? Regardless of how good any country's economy is doing, there are always those that can not find jobs or are in between jobs. For those of you pig-headed bigots that seem to insist that this entire population consists of dead-beat racial minorities, you had better take another look at the IT generation of the 90s least you, or someone you love, find yourselves in such a situation. Yup, sucks for them. BUT I'm sure that at the prospect of facing possible extinction, the industry would step up to the plate and offer concessions and workable alternatives that would include a universal coverage plan. The public just needs to hold the gun to their heads and actually make plans to pull the trigger if they don't want to play. Health insurance companies don't need to lose big. They just need to make compromises. A shining example of a universal REQUIREMENT system of coverage that has not only prospered, but led to more competitive pricing that has benefited the consumer.
Doesn't take long to get far behind on these threads! It will take me a while to process all this info you linked up. On first pass of most of it tho I would be tempted to "DING" the bell for you pegging my characterization as correct; as confirmed by the John Galt book character's declaration: "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Thanks for the mental beef jerky to gnaw on. Maybe it is time I read Atlas Shrugged. Somewhere in all this, I believe the solution to the country's healthcare issue lies with the companies whom we devote our lives to. Well that is old school ways (and that genie is long out of the bottle) but there was a better symmetry to life back when the company you worked for looked more like your 'family' rather than just the ass holes who buy us a wholesale and sell our efforts at retail. Bonus time is barely a dry pat on the back than true compensation for helping "the man" do a phenomenal last quarter. Maybe Wal*Mart should step up to the plate and help the 'resource' that has put them on top?
It should be funded through a combination of personal and business taxes which would replace $10,000 - 12,000 a year per family currently paid by employer and employee to insurance companies. On average nobody's going to pay any more than what they are paying right now, likely less. The elimination of the middleman and huge counter-productive bureaucracy associated with it will provide more than enough savings to cover every american regardless of his/her employment status. That's at least based on Kucinich's numbers calculated by researchers at Harvard Medical School and which are pretty much in line with data from other western countries practicing Universal Healthcare. The pricing is only more competitive for safe drivers, if you had a couple of accidents/tickets you'll pay through the roof. At least if you're a bad driver - it's your own fault and you deserve to pay more, if you have a heart condition - it's not your fault, nevertheless you will never be able to afford the premiums. You'll never force HMOs to compete for the business of the sick and the elderly - people who need health coverage most. Again with auto-insurance you don't have to have a car if you can't afford insurance, that's certainly not the case with health insurance which one must have.
Hard core Libertarian or not, I actually find it hard to come up with strong logical arguments <b>against</b> transforming the current U.S. health system into a socialist system. :eek: This assumes that all patients would still have the option of paying out of pocket for private health services. That's how bad things are right now. When I lived in Israel, health care services were practically 'free', but the quality of care I received through Israel's socialist medical system was considerably better than the U.S. care we're all paying a fortune to get now. I mean, absolutely no comparison. Maybe there are underlying cultural or hereditary factors which cause Jewish societies to produce a higher per capita ratio of competent doctors. If so, that might weaken the case for socialist medicine based on the above comparison. I don't know, and by even suggesting such a thing, I'll probably attract some faux self-righteous 'anti-racist' hostility. Fine- but you still have to admit, I'm no dittohead to any one specific political philosophy.
Yes, BUT the same government that has issues balancing the books on the present system is going to handle EVERYONE's healthcare? They're going to have more problems trying to convince everyone that they won't screw it up, much less convince them that they'll actually pay less. Unlike driving recordings, insurance companies aren't privvy to personal medical history records. Besides, even if they did, through a universal healthcare system that is competitively offered by employers that have to provide coverage by law, they would have little choice if they wanted the truely lucritive accounts. By empowering businesses with federal backing by law, insurance companies could be hired, fired, and even fined by companies much like other independent contractors are now. The weighted average of premiums can be reduced by companies themselves as rewards for offering supplement programs that help promote healthy lifestyles (e.i. quit smoking campaigns, diet and weight control workshops, exercise and fitness club discounts, etc. etc.). As it stands right now, nothing is stopping health insurers from dumping you off coverage when you end up with an expensive illness. Let them try that with a company the size of IBM a few times, that company having to foot the rest of their employee's medical bills from their profit margin, and see how long that insurer can manage to hold onto their most profitable accounts. The prospect of going out of business should do the trick. Just who do you think is lobbying the hardest against universal healthcare? The people that have to pay for coverage or the people that make the most $$$ off the current system? That depends on where you live and what you do for a living. Plenty of people without it now; they're doing just "dandy". Plenty of people are paying for the uninsured now; they must be "dandy" as well because a lot of them aren't complaining. They're more interested on why Ahab is pissed off about cartoons and who to elect for President based off of what he does or doesn't do with his dick.
It's being successfully done by governments of Canada, France, Israel, Japan, Ireland, Hong Kong and several dozens other countries. The US government maintains the best military in the world, it was the first to put a man on the moon, it has excellent police and fire force, even Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are managed reasonably well. I have no reason to believe the government can't handle responsibilities of Aetna or Oxford. Let me rephrase what I said before - not having a car is a major inconvenience but it's not life threatening and it's not going to devastate you financially, you can always look for another job, get a ride with a co-worker etc, in other words you have alternatives. Not having health insurance on the other side can easilly kill you and/or bankrupt you and if you have a medical problem - there are no alternatives.
Americans who lived in other western countries with Universal Healthcare like Canada, Japan, France, Hong Kong etc almost unanimously share your impressions and observations and also enjoyed the superior quality and convenience of "socialist" medical system. In other words that's not a jewish thing.
You can't possibly be serious. Medicare/Medicaid is an enormous factor in what is wrong with our present system. The deficit values in its accounting alone is a total mess. The way the system is being managed is CREATING ITS OWN inflationary price tag. In this post on another thread, I went into pretty good detail as to why its failing. Not being insurered hasn't killed anyone to the best of my knowledge. You can be uninsured, walk into any ER in any facility that receives federal funding, and they HAVE TO provide you with the best quality care dictated by law to the FULL extent of your condition and their capabilities. All you have to do is prove that you can't afford to pay. If you don't pay the bills that are mailed to you, nothing happens because the facility will not risk the PR fall-out of financially penalizing any of its patients. The politicians won't do anything because they want your vote. The hospitals won't do anything because they want the candy that Uncle Sugar hands out. The ALTERNATIVE IS to have the system shoulder the costs.
More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm Uncovered medical expenses are leading to bankruptcies http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/17/BUG5QBCI5B1.DTL&type=business I am not an expert on Medicare/Medicaid of course but I am not hearing that they are fallling apart either. When I mentioned them I was talking specifically about the management of these programs which is pretty reasonable with very low overhead. That their budget is cut, that they may be underfunded or unable to keep up with inflation in the environment of skyrocketing healthcare costs is not an inherent or unfixable flaw of those programs. IMO given the circumstances they've been coping pretty well. Private insurers experience the same inflation problems, they just routinely pass cost increases on to their customers, adding their own pretty significant markups in the process.
The biggest flaw with this "study" is that it doesn't address the inherent unhealthy consequences that predominate the demographic of the uninsured. How many of the uninsured vs insured smoke, eat junk, are over-weight, are alcoholics, use drugs, practice unsafe sex, are homeless, live and work in unhealthy environments, etc. etc. It does not take into account that the uninsured are less likely to use any type of healthcare, even if its available, until their condition is severe or terminal. How disappointing; I would have expected better from the Institute Of Medicine. You're original statement was that "Not having health insurance on the other side can easilly kill you and/or bankrupt you". My reply addressed that specifically. While it has its merits in discussing whether or not "the fox" should be left to tend the hen house, this article you submit as support for your arguement doesn't have anything to do with that issue. You haven't been listening. There have been numerous attempts by practioners to warn people about the impending problems around the corner. A couple of quotes from this recent article about primary care: "U.S. doctors have long complained that reimbursement policies of both Medicare and private insurers reward a "just-in-time" approach, instead of preventive care that would save money and keep patients healthier." "Medicare will pay tens of thousands of dollars ... for a limb amputation on a diabetic patient, but virtually nothing to the primary care physician for keeping the patient's diabetes under control," Once again, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!! The overhead is outrageous and they perpetuate their own inflationary problems through DEFICIT SPENDING; something our government, particularly Republicans, has resorted to habitually as an acceptable practice in virtually every aspect of the federal budget.