This is the grand plan? Pitiful or pity the fool.

flyupsidedown · This is the grand plan? Pitiful or pity the fool.

"Better" Health Care?
By John Stossel

President Obama says government will make health care cheaper and better. But there's no free lunch.

In England, health care is "free" -- as long as you don't mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.Obama insists he is not "trying to bring about government-run healthcare".

"But government management does the same thing," says Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute. "To reduce costs they'll have to ration -- deny -- care."

"People line up for care, some of them die. That's what happens," says Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of "The Cure". He liked Canada's government health care until he started treating patients.

"The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house." "You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months."

Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren't sick when the poll-taker calls. Canadian doctors told us the system is cracking. One complained that he can't get heart-attack victims into the ICU.

In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but it's much worse in Canada. If you're sick enough to be admitted, the average wait is 23 hours.

"We can't send these patients to other hospitals. Dr. Eric Letovsky told us. "Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are."

More than a million and a half Canadians say they can't find a family doctor. Some towns hold lotteries to determine who gets a doctor. In Norwood, Ontario, "20/20" videotaped a town clerk pulling the names of the lucky winners out of a lottery box. The losers must wait to see a doctor.

Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective."

"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.

It's true that America's partly profit-driven, partly bureaucratic system is expensive, and sometimes wasteful, but the pursuit of profit reduces waste and costs and gives the world the improvements in medicine that ease pain and save lives.

"[America] is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment," Dr. Gratzer says.

"Literally we're surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You've got to pay a price for that type of advancement."

Canada and England don't pay the price because they freeload off American innovation. If America adopted their systems, we could worry less about paying for health care, but we'd get 2009-level care -- forever. Government monopolies don't innovate. Profit seekers do.

We saw this in Canada, where we did find one area of medicine that offers easy access to cutting-edge technology -- CT scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, etc. It was open 24/7. Patients didn't have to wait.

But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Animal care is the one area of medicine that hasn't been taken over by the government. Dogs can get a CT scan in one day. For people, the waiting list is a month.

Kestrel

Waiting for healthcare is better than not getting it because you can't afford it. I spent most of my life being uninsured.

coastie

I'm sorry you spent most of your life uninsured, Kestrel. Many millions do have insurance now and don't have to wait. They like it that way.

Are you suggesting that we'd all be better off if everyone had health insurance even if we have to wait to see a doctor or a specialist?

That would be better, I guess, than not having any insurance at all. But MOST Americans do have insurance now and don't have the waits that are common in countries with nationalized systems.

If we go to a nationalized system and waits for treatment become commonplace - that is not an improvement over what we have now.

Outsider

coastie wrote:

THE CURE

Do you ever post anything of value fly?

coastie

Outsider - no, I don't think you'll find anything where Obama says he wants a nationalized health care plan. As a matter of fact, he insists he doesn't want one. But it will happen by attrition.

What will happen is other insurers will be squeezed out of the marketplace. The Federal government will establish how much they will pay for procedures - as they do with Medicaid and Medicare. Healthcare providers won't have a choice, they have to accept what the government pays. Private insurers (for profit companies - that have stockholders and employees to pay) won't be able to offer the same services at the same price as the government. Employers that now provide health insurance for their employees will have to weigh those costs with maybe giving their employees an extra $100 or so a month, quit providing insurance for their employees and let their employees buy into the federal government's insurance.

read this article:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/11/n...a_health_plan_no_bargain.fortune/

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- America is finally getting a detailed look at the sweeping, long-awaited health-care reform platform championed by President Obama. This week the Democrats have unveiled their two primary proposals -- a 700-plus page bill in the Senate and the outline of the forthcoming version in the House that presents essentially the same blueprint for change.

The crucial question about Obama's agenda has always been whether it really will slow the disastrous rise in health-care spending, or actually increase it while hiding the real costs of the new system. On analyzing the bills, the conclusion is inescapable: Obama promises Americans what appears to be a bargain by heavily subsidizing their premiums. But the only way to pay for what's really outrageously expensive coverage will be huge tax increases, especially on the same middle class that's being wooed as the chief beneficiary of reform.

The plans contain four proposals that will substantially weaken the ability of the market, already limited by burdensome regulation, to restrain medical spending.

First, they will impose rich, standard packages of benefits, with low deductibles, for all Americans. Those policies, typically containing everything from in-vitro fertilization to mental health benefits, are usually far more expensive than anything most people would pay for with their own money.

Second, the plans would impose on a federal level the doctrine of community rating, in which all customers have to be offered the same rates, regardless of their health risks. Community rating forces young people to pay far more than their actual cost, a main reason for today's 46 million uninsured, while it subsidizes older patients.

Third, Obama would ban consumers from buying private insurance across state lines, perpetuating the price differences in today's fragmented market, instead of allowing all Americans to shop anywhere for the best deals.

Fourth, both plans propose what's known as a "public option," or a Medicare-style plan that would compete with the private offerings. The previous three proposals would make the private plans extremely expensive. With the same subsidies, the Medicare-style plan could put them out of business.

Before we get into the specifics of each problem, it's important to note that Obama's health-care plan is not included in his 2010 budget. The administration pledges that his health-care plan won't expand the deficit because it will be entirely paid for by tax increases. But even if the deficit stays the same, spending and taxes will be far from the same. By most estimates, Obama's plan will cost more than $200 billion a year by 2019. All told, government outlays as a share of GDP are projected to reach 26% by that point, up five percentage points from when Obama took office.

Now, let's examine the four ways in which the new proposals are likely to increase costs:

1.) The two bills would require states to establish insurance "exchanges" that would offer a variety of plans. The rub is that the federal government would impose minimum standards on all of those plans, from New York to Wyoming to Hawaii, that are often more stringent and expensive than the existing laws require.

A case in point is the first requirement, the minimum benefits package. Today, many states require a menu of costly coverage, while others impose only light requirements. Colorado, for example, mandates hair transplants, rehab services, and hearing aids, while Illinois requires none of them. The Senate bill gives a preliminary list that includes mental health and prescription drug benefits, and substance abuse programs. That's the minimum menu that all states would have to offer.

A special panel of experts would add to that list -- and you can bet that the additions would be substantial and costly. As a result, it would be far more difficult for consumers to purchase basic, stripped down, low-cost policies for catastrophic care that are bargains in states like Alabama or Indiana.

2.) In its purest form, community rating requires that insurers charge the same premiums for all their patients, regardless of their age, obesity or any lifestyle differences. New York, New Jersey and a half-dozen other states have stringent community rating laws. In most states, insurers can charge their customers according to their actual costs, so a 62-year-old smoker would pay, say, $10,000 for a policy versus $800 for a 20-year-old marathoner.

The senate plan would impose a strict, narrow band on all premiums nationwide: Insurers could never charge more than twice as much in premiums for their most expensive patient versus their least costly. So the 62-year-old's policy might fall to $5,000, and the 20-year-old's would go to $2,500. The senior would get a big subsidy, and the youngster would pay far more than his real cost.

3.) The state "exchanges" would exist in 50 totally separate markets. Even with the harmonization of community rating and benefits packages, the differences in prices across states would remain large.

Allowing Americans to buy insurance anywhere, at the lowest prices, would create nationwide competition that would drive down costs everywhere. But the Obama plan will not allow a true national market. It's remarkable that Obama would endorse a plan that perpetuates big price differences. His solution for Medicare is to do just the opposite by flattening costs in the most expensive regions to match the lowest levels anywhere in the U.S.

4.) The so-called public option is now included in both the Senate and House bills, and is strongly endorsed by Obama. Under the public option, the exchanges would offer a plan resembling Medicare for more than 100 million working Americans. Today, most of them are covered by their employers' plans. But the Democrats' proposals contain a "pay or play" provision that would allow companies, in effect, to drop their coverage and substitute a payroll tax.

Because their health care costs are growing so rapidly, it's likely that most companies would dump their plans. "That's what will happen," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, which champions free-market solutions to health care. "Employees could then go to the exchanges and get subsidized insurance."

The problem here is that the public option would compete directly with the private plans. Both would be heavily subsidized, with Americans making up to $110,000 eligible for assistance under the Senate proposal. It's likely that the Medicare-like option will drive out private insurers, since the government plan has several advantages. The plans impose public-utility-like restrictions on the insurers, capping their profits and transferring premiums from the insurers with the younger, healthier patients to those who serve an older, sicker population. Those restrictions will hardly make them nimble competitors. At the same time, the imposition of costly benefits packages and community rating will raise their costs.

That the government enjoys an edge in purchasing doesn't mean that the overall costs will fall. It's precisely the opposite. The public plan will be so heavily subsidized that Americans will tend to over-consume expensive medical services just the way they do now under regular Medicare. Only this time, the number of patients will be almost three times larger.

The demand for everything from knee surgery to mental health counseling will soar. But the government will keep a lid on prices, so Americans, for the first time, will be faced with rationing. The hospitals and physicians simply won't be able to satisfy the unhinged demand for the services that look like a bargain.

The lines will grow. And so will the spending, and the taxes. And that's what Obama isn't telling you.

First Published: June 11, 2009: 3:56 AM Et

Outsider

coastie wrote:

flyupsidedown

You must be joking. Maybe he thinks we are as stupid to believe politicians mean what they say. Remember, he is the one that is going to reduce taxes on 95% of Americans and none making under 250,000 will be taxed. He doesn't want to own a car company either. If congress agrees to the largest spending bill in the world unemployment won't go above 8.5%, riiiiiight. If it quacks like a duck . . .

Kestrel

coastie

http://www.harp.org/canada-phillips.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n5_v25/ai_14536885/

from the above link:

Kestrel

So you use the worst government run system, and assume that is what we will get. Not only that, but many of the articles you quoted are talking about the early 90's, about 15 years ago! How about something about the last couple years?

From an article you posted.

flyupsidedown

kestrel:

coastie

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

http://www.familydoctormag.com/do...os-and-cons-from-the-experts.html

I guess you can find most any opinion you want to find on this subject. The bottom line - if the government gets involved in insuring people, it will squeeze out for profit insurers one at a time. We'll be left with only the national system eventually. And ---- we'll all lose.

Kestrel

Kestrel

coastie

the income tax rates in most of the European countries is 5-20 percent higher than ours in this country. In addition, they all have a Value added tax (for all intents and purposes, a national sales tax). I guess if we're willing to pay 50-60 percent of our income in taxes, we can let the government take care of everything for us.

Private insurers are "for profit" companies. As such, they have their employees to pay and investors and boards of directors to to pay.

The government is not for profit, they'll be able to undercut private insurers and drive them out of business. The government can go in the red for years and keep on going (they print the money). Private companies can't do that and can't compete with the government.

Kestrel

True, Europe pays more in income and sales taxes than the US. But then we pay plenty of fees for healthcare, education, etc.

Problem is the red tape that doctors have to go through to get insurers to pay for the healthcare. There are doctors that do everything themselves (even take out the trash), make their money, and are able to charge less, but they charge the customer and avoid dealing with the paperwork.

And I've seen private companies drive the government out of business, and then increase rates. Example? Well, the state health plan. State thought they were getting a deal by switching to BCBS and getting rid of the state plan. But after a couple years with BCBS, it turns out that it costs a bunch more than they thought it would, and NC government had to do a bailout, and increase rates on the healthplan.

And then there are the DOT asphalt plants.

flyupsidedown

Kestrel

Conservative Intelligence Visualization
or Visualization of Sticking with Current Healthcare

Outsider

Maybe the wait is not the only thing important in health care. Quality of care just might be better if you want to live. I see Atlanta didn't make the Honor Roll list, but Boston did! Just maybe Obama is on to something. Very Happy

Best Hospitals Honor Roll top 10.

U.S. News analyzed data on 5,453 medical centers to produce this year's 16 specialty rankings. Only 170 hospitals were ranked in one or more specialties and, of those, just 19 were of Honor Roll caliber. To be in this elite group, which rewards breadth of excellence, a hospital had to achieve high scores in six or more specialties. The order is based on points—a hospital earned 2 points for ranking at or close to the top in a specialty, 1 point if ranked slightly lower.

1 Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
30 points in 15 specialties

2 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
28 points in 15 specialties

3 Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
25 points in 14 specialties

4 Cleveland Clinic
25 points in 13 specialties

5 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
24 points in 12 specialties

6 New York-Presbyterian Univ. Hosp. of Columbia and Cornell
22 points in 12 specialties

7 University of California, San Francisco Medical Center
21 points in 11 specialties

8 Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston
18 points in 11 specialties

9 Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
18 points in 11 specialties

10 Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
18 points in 10 specialties

flyupsidedown

Outsider:

Kestrel

I would like records on doctors to be public. What is your success rate? How many times have you done this operation?