We were in an undeclared war with Russia for at least 45 years that cost both countries tremendously and really shaped foreign policy for several generations (and still is, with Condi at State). I don't think Russia in its various manifestations over the centuries has ever been a strong, reliable ally of anyone. They have always wanted to be a dominant world player projecting power, not subordinate to someone else. But the U.S. could have done a lot better job of aligning our interests together. At least that's my reading of Russian history, but I'm hardly an expert.
My point is that Dems have been rolling out the healthcare speech every four years for decades to make the unions all warm and fuzzy and promptly forget about it until the next election cycle. As for affordable healthcare, you do not get it by adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of everything -- a typical Dem solution -- because while it may be cheaper for some it is more expensive for other and the ultimate effect is a transfer of wealth with negative net savings. You also don't do it by having price controls -- another typical Dem solution -- for while you may have savings in the short run, you will have worst healthcare in the long run.
My point is that Dems have been rolling out the healthcare speech every four years for decades to make the unions all warm and fuzzy and promptly forget about it until the next election cycle. As I said before it's not entirely fair, Hillary tried and that was the only time that the dems controlled the White House during the last 26 years, they simply did not have another chance. Athough I tend to agree that the dems have not tried hard enough and have not made it the highest priority. Nevertheless it's obvious that if a serious solution is ever to be proposed in the future it will come from the dems, not repubicans. As for affordable healthcare, you do not get it by adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of everything -- a typical Dem solution LOL, in your previous sentence you implied that the dems never offered a healthcare solution and now you are claiming that the democratic solution will not work. And for the record no one is proposing additional bureaucracy on top of everything, the solution should replace insurance companies that are pocketing about 40% of healthcare expenses with medicare style (2% overhead) government controlled distribution of healthcare services.
Could you provide a link to support your claim (no pun intended)? Most studies show private carriers with "overhead" of around 1/3 your figure.
...insurance carriers are under increased pressure to become more efficient and minimize costs. Analysts say the primary challenge is to reduce the heavy administrative burden, which accounts for 31% of all healthcare expenditures, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This workload includes the demanding day-to-day handling of enrollment, billing, reconciliation, and payment. http://www.benefitfocus.com/press/2005.01.18.html I am pretty sure I saw higher numbers but 31% is high enough. Besides the number includes administrative cost, it probably does not include insurance companies' profits which are also substantial.
LOL. Not exactly the most credible link doodoo. I'm having difficulty finding the report from the "Census" bureau. Doesn't really seem those figures would be in their perusal though. Nader say's it's 24%. http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=4 Commondreams (I've no idea who they are) say's 12%. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0813-03.htm The easiest remedy (once again, no pun intended) would be if a trader who's good with Hoover's etal, could breakdown an earnings report of let's say, United Healthcare, then we can see actual data.
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, 52, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and an internist at Cambridge Hospital: Q. What is driving our high health care costs? A. Administrative costs. As of 1999, these accounted for 31 percent of U.S. health care expenditures, compared to 16.7 percent in Canada. In fact, we spent $1,059 per person on administrative costs, compared to $307 in Canada. With a single-payer system, we could save $209 billion a year by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private insurance industry. Administrative costs may even be higher with the new Medicare bill. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/h...&en=154b9f2001dce8b2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
I read the doctor's proposals in the Times article. Several things popped out. First, the idea that hospitals though private would be paid a fixed budget by the government. This would have the same effect as price controls: since the amount of income received is fixed there is no incentive to maintain the facilities, which will deteriorate over time. Are doctors fees fixed by the government in a fee for service system? If so, this will have an impact on the quality and quantity of medical service available. Second, no co-pays or deductibles tends to lead to a overutilization of medical services, as the marginal cost of getting treatments is zero. However, there is the hidden cost of the longer waits for getting medical services, which will impact wealthier patients more. It is not immediately clear to me how having the government process claims rather than private industry leads to cost savings unless the idea is to eliminate the profit. By that thinking we should eliminate profits in all industries to save costs. I think there was a 70-year experiment with that in the Soviet Union that didn't work so well ultimately . . . . I would like to see more not less choice in health care plans -- the ability to choose deductible and copay plans, prescription coverages or not, perhaps even other levels of service.
Several things popped out. I wonder why the fact that "We spend about twice as much on health care â $5,600 per person in 2003 â as the average in other developed nations, yet we still have more than 41 million uninsured." was not among the things that popped out. First, the idea that hospitals though private would be paid a fixed budget by the government. This would have the same effect as price controls: since the amount of income received is fixed there is no incentive to maintain the facilities, which will deteriorate over time. This is just one proposal, this is just one idea, it's certainly not in stone, the budget does not have to be fixed or it can be fixed on a per-patient basis which will give them an insentive to do a good job in order to retain their customers. At any rate, police departments receive a fixed budget, so do quite a lot of other organizations, I don't see their facilities and their performance detiriorate over time. Are doctors fees fixed by the government in a fee for service system? If so, this will have an impact on the quality and quantity of medical service available. Again there are different ways to handle it but what about doctors' fees now, they are already fixed by the insurance industry aren't they? Every medical or dental procedure has a price associated with it and insurance companies won't pay a penny more. Virtually all doctors now happily accept Medicare, what makes you think that they will not be willing to accept it when it covers everyone? Second, no co-pays or deductibles tends to lead to a overutilization of medical services, as the marginal cost of getting treatments is zero. No one enjoys doctor visits, that's probably the best deterrent. Besides early diagnostics and prevention will in the long run save money and lives. And co-payments don't need to be eliminated either, everyone can afford a $10 - $20 co-pay and it will certainly prevent people from abusing the system. However, there is the hidden cost of the longer waits for getting medical services, which will impact wealthier patients more. Longer waits are avoidable, besides people will be allowed to go outside the system. It is not immediately clear to me how having the government process claims rather than private industry leads to cost savings unless the idea is to eliminate the profit. Eliminating the profit is certainly part of the idea - one global non-profit government run insurance company covering everybody in this country with one set of rules, one set of forms and requirements, one staff, one set of computers and equipment, one building etc as opposed to thousands of insurance companies, each one with their own rules, paperwork and compliance procedures, hunderds of thousands of employees, millions of computers all doing the same things, occupying (and paying rent for) thousands of buildings all accross the country. It all translates into huge administrative cost. Also add to that an obvious conflict of interests - insurance companies are interested in denying services to patients and denying payments to doctors/hospitals. By that thinking we should eliminate profits in all industries to save costs. I think there was a 70-year experiment with that in the Soviet Union that didn't work so well ultimately . . . . Our military is non-profit, so is the police, so is a lot of other departments, so is the distribution of healthcare services to Medicare recipients. Using the example of the Soviet Union is a tad disingenuous, try France, Spain, Italy, Israel, Japan and lots of other countries, they implemented single-payer healthcare systems decades ago and they work extremely well.
Just a point about "complete sentences". GWB is a great campaigner... And has made very, very few spoken "mistakes"... And his speech plays very well in the South... Because it is the language of a Christian family man... Which is precisely WHY it freaks out Elitists and Social Deviants of every stripe. In contrast... Two cool, professional pols like Gore and Kerry... When up against GWB in a campaign... Have made countless idiotic statements and mistakes... And are now in well-deserved oblivion.