Government Run Health Care

[Klark]

Is it a good idea to have a government run health care system?

Today in my e-mail at work, I received the following story in a press release:

CANADIAN BRAIN TUMOR SURVIVOR TESTIFIES
AGAINST GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE:
“If I would have relied on my government, I’d be dead.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Canadian Shona Holmes testified today in front of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce about her horrific experience trying to get life-saving medical treatment under the government-run healthcare system in Canada.

Holmes, a brain tumor survivor, is featured in an ad running in several states, appealing to Americans to reject a Washington takeover of health care. She’s speaking out against so-called health care reforms that put politicians and bureaucrats between patients and doctors.

Holmes testified today that, when given the extraordinary wait time of 6 months for seeing a specialist in Canada, she asked: “How could I wait that long for the care I so desperately needed? How could I allow my government to gamble with my health?”

And the government did gamble. After the government told her to wait 6 months, Holmes flew to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she was diagnosed with a brain tumor and given a six-week window for surgery. Holmes went back to Canada , diagnosis in hand, and the Canadian government refused to move up the surgery. She went back to the Mayo Clinic and had the surgery done three weeks later.

“The [Canadian] health care system is a single-payer system, which means there are no options for alternative avenues of care. In fact, to exercise the right to see a doctor outside of my government-run insurance in my own country is in fact illegal ,” testified Holmes. “What started many years ago as a seemingly compassionate move in government to treat all equally and fairly by providing the same medical coverage for everyone has in fact turned into a nightmare of everyone suffering equally. We have limited resources and funds to offer timely treatment to our citizens.”

Now granted, that release definitely has the groups interest spin on it, making government run health care look like a joke, but that's exactly why I thought up the question.

So, what's your opinion? Is government run health care the way to go?

(I would make this a poll, but I prefer discussion over poll results.)

[UNODRAGONE]

In my country we have a national health care plan that provides free health care to natives and residents and it has worked out incredibly well. We receive free medical care and if the doctors deem we need medical help, we get it. When I came here, the health care system honestly overwhelmed me. Here you pay for insurance yet your insurance does not cover everything and denies you for certain treatments that are beneficial and often desperately needed. Perfect example, I have an illness that there is no cure for but there is treatment to help slow the progression and give me comfort and yet my insurance company refuses to cover the cost of it so I shell out $130 a month for the treatment. I honestly feel though that the way our government is, it would be like what happened to this poor women in the article, that the government would make them wait or not approve it. I am for government run health care but fear it would be a fight between doctors and the government were the client would loose.

[Chriz]

So, what's your opinion? Is government run health care the way to go?

We already have much government-funded health care in the US. If I go to the emergency room with an actual emergency, I'll get treatment even if I have no insurance or even a dime in my pocket.

My brother had an aneurysm a few years back, and had no health insurance or even a primary doctor. He not only received treatment, but got one of the best brain doctors in the country (one of the benefits of living near Boston, I admit). Afterward, the hospital set up a payment plan and even gave him some financial aid due to his (then) low-income status (he's doing much better now, healthwise and financially). The hospital could do this because it gets some government aid, which means that we taxpayers of Massachusetts paid up front for his treatment, and he's now paying us back, so to speak.

What worries me more than taxpayer-funded healthcare is government-run healthcare. I wouldn't trust the government -- especially the federal government -- to clean my garage without burning my house down and then charging me for the environmental damage caused by the smoke.

I can't decide if it's really going to fall flat (http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/06/22/why-obamacare-may-be-flatlining/) or if we'll end up with it anyway.

[Tempest]

I'm on the fence with this, but I'm leaning toward government run health care. Yes, there are sob stories with government run health care, but guess what? There are sob stories with the way it is now, too. Health insurance is ridiculously expensive, and like UNO said, it doesn't even cover some things. The poor are being left behind because they have to choose between living through the week or having health insurance to cover what might happen to them. Of course, hospitals are required to give treatment regardless, but I don't believe the quality of care is the same for the uninsured as it is for the insured.

On the other hand, I have heard that government run health care results in long wait times at hospitals. For instance, my dad broke his leg while in Canada on a business trip. His customer, a Canadian, said my dad should call for an ambulance because they get priority over people who just show up at the hospital. He said that if he just went to the hospital rather than taking an ambulance, my dad could wait hours. I don't think this is good, either.

Maybe something in the middle would work better.

[Chriz]

Health insurance is ridiculously expensive, and like UNO said, it doesn't even cover some things.

I don't understand why people think health coverage would become cheaper if it's government run. Instead of $X/month to your insurance company, you'll just pay $X/month in taxes. More, actually, because in addition to paying all the people your money pays now, you also have to pay for the government bureaucrats to manage it all.

[Klark]

Egads! I'm on it today. I just realized I didn't post my opinion of it!

As a person who has been denied private health insurance because of a heart murmur, you would think I harbor an ill will against the insurance companies of America, but I do not. As a result of the denial, I was able to get on the state of Nebraska's CHIP health insurance pool coverage, which primarily isn't that bad.

Granted, I did take a $10,000 deductible to keep my premium low, but so far it's working for me.

I was at the hospital with my wife prior to her getting on her health insurance. (We both pay for ours privately because our employer does not offer health insurance.) The doctor asked if we had insurance, we said No and he said he wouldn't order any more tests than were necessary to see if she was diabetic. Turns out she was on the verge, but not diabetic and we saved some money because the unnecessary tests weren't administered.

I am in good spirits about insurance because of my denial by one firm that allowed me entrance into another program. One of the requirements is a private health insurer has refused you. Yes, the premium is a little more because the state's health insurance pool is for high-risk people. (I'm classified high-risk because of the heart murmur.)

I agree that having a government-run health care system isn't what I want to see. I don't want to see people treated like cattle, which we most assuredly would be, and I don't want to see such-and-such politician getting better treatment faster because of his social status, which almost assuredly would happen.

The current set up in America isn't perfect, it's all too over-priced, but we get the care we need when we need it regardless of whether we have money and insurance.

I would like to see the price come down. It was a tad ridiculous when my wife wrecked her bike and tore a hole in her knee and we went to the emergency room, got an X-Ray and got her stitched up in about an hour's time total.

We received a bill for $857 for the emergency room, $256 for the doctor's time, $200 for the X-Ray and $35 for the specialist to look at the X-Ray.

[Tempest]

I don't understand why people think health coverage would become cheaper if it's government run. Instead of $X/month to your insurance company, you'll just pay $X/month in taxes. More, actually, because in addition to paying all the people your money pays now, you also have to pay for the government bureaucrats to manage it all.

The point is that you're paying what? $500 a month or something ridiculous for health insurance (if not covered by your employer), and they won't cover some of the things you need. At least with government run health care, you get the care you need, eventually. Plus, I'm guessing the tax is based on your income, so the less fortunate wouldn't have to spend 1/3 their month's pay on health insurance. Instead they'd pay a fixed amount based on whatever they made.

[Chriz]

The point is that you're paying what? $500 a month or something ridiculous for health insurance (if not covered by your employer), and they won't cover some of the things you need. At least with government run health care, you get the care you need, eventually.

Why would you think that? It's not like going through the government is going to magically make health costs go down, or change the laws of risk. Health care is expensive because doctors have to pay so much into malpractice insurance, because we're a sue-happy culture. This won't change.

Plus, I'm guessing the tax is based on your income, so the less fortunate wouldn't have to spend 1/3 their month's pay on health insurance. Instead they'd pay a fixed amount based on whatever they made.

So if I make a "lot" of money, and I could afford better than the cattle-car health care the government's going to give me, I still have to pay for yours? I never understood the morality behind income redistribution. Do I get to write you off as a dependent, since I'm paying for your expenses?

If $500/mo represents 1/3 of your income, you most likely qualify for some kind of state aid for your health insurance needs anyway. Or you need to switch plans. My plan -- which is national -- costs $200/mo (my employer doesn't pay for any of my health insurance, either), and it was the expensive option. I won't bother listing the benefits, but it's pretty good.

I understand that if you're a special medical case, health care can be expensive. But by definition, you're an outlier. If you have some kind of special medical condition, you simply can't live your life like everyone else. You have to build your life around your condition, at least financially.

Polycystic Kidney Disease runs in my family. All but me and one of my six siblings has it. They will all die painfully by age 50 if they don't get almost daily dialysis and an eventual transplant. This costs them in health coverage, and even in life planning. The brother I mentioned earlier was rejected for ROTC funding for college because of his PKD, even though he wouldn't be symptomatic for over thirty years (the aneurysm was a symptom, but it came early). This rejection meant he couldn't go to the university he wanted and, consequently, forced him to change his whole set of plans for where his life would take him.

But it's unrealistic to look at extremes like this and try to change the system to accommodate it at the expense of the majority. You don't base legal policy on (relatively) isolated, extreme events.

[Binkx]

I will keep this simple.

The government mucks up enough as it is, and I don't like the idea of them meddling in mine or anyone's health besides their own. So I say no to Government-run Health Care.

That is all.

[Wolf-Bone]

I'm honestly getting sick of the debate itself. It's a game of "our broken system is better than your broken system". It's the lesser of two evils bullshit we ought to have grown out of this far into the post-Bush era.

There's actually a hell of a lot more to consider when assessing the over all health of a country than what its health-care system is like. By that same token, there's more to healing a nation than changing its health-care system. Certain things just aren't supposed to happen at certain ages of our population, and yet they are, so clearly there is something wrong with us as much as there is with the system.

We're not supposed to be losing our hair in our 20's, our teeth even younger some of us, develop cholesterol issues, high blood pressure, diabetes and the like when some of us do if we do at all. We're not supposed to get liver cancer at 23, but we do, and this is the problem. It's COMMON FUCKING SENSE!

[Chriz]

We're not supposed to be losing our hair in our 20's, our teeth even younger some of us, develop cholesterol issues, high blood pressure, diabetes and the like when some of us do if we do at all. We're not supposed to get liver cancer at 23, but we do, and this is the problem. It's COMMON FUCKING SENSE!

Uh, what?

You do realize we in the western world pretty much represent the healthiest humanity has ever been. Ever.

[Wolf-Bone]

Uh, what?

You do realize we in the western world pretty much represent the healthiest humanity has ever been. Ever.

We're also pretty damn good builders too. Except for when we say that while we got holes in the roof, a couple smashed windows and bugs crawling out the sink.

I know I know, I'm probably speaking "fag" Greek here and not proper Spartan so let me rephrase: We criticize because we can. It's what makes us better than you, whoever you are in your little banana-republic off the coast of buttfuckistan, praying to your lil' cargo-cult god instead of solving your own damn problems!

It's just.... you know the rest.

[Klark]

And we're back on topic to find out what opinions are toward a government-run health care system.

So far, it's not looking good for government-run health care, but it looks as though that's because people don't trust their government.

One thing I'm not seeing is what affect government-run health care might have on the doctors and other medical personnel. Would they violate the oath because of government rules perhaps? I think that's a tough question.

[Shaun]

I am against, I think the government has enough control over my life. That and I hate to go with the flow, but I don't trust the government for shit.

[Chriz]

So far, it's not looking good for government-run health care, but it looks as though that's because people don't trust their government.

That's my main reason for opposing government-run anything. Monopolies are bad for a number of reasons, but one big reason is that they lose any incentive to care about their performance. Why care if the customer can't go elsewhere?

[Klark]

That's my main reason for opposing government-run anything. Monopolies are bad for a number of reasons, but one big reason is that they lose any incentive to care about their performance. Why care if the customer can't go elsewhere?

That's an excellent point. A government-run health care system would be a monopoly.

So what are thoughts on government regulated health insurance companies? Could that provide the comprised answer people seem to think we need?

[Startraveler]

I'm curious how "government-run" is being used here. Are we considering Medicare to be government-run?

[Klark]

I'm curious how "government-run" is being used here. Are we considering Medicare to be government-run?

No, that's more government funded than government run even if the government oversees its operations. Medicare is more like insurance than government run health care. We're talking more like Canada's health system being used as a model for America's health structure.

[Chriz]

I'm curious how "government-run" is being used here.

By way of analogy, look at the USPS. Technically, they have competition in the form of FedEx and UPS and whomever else. But the USPS has the legal power to dictate the minimum that those other parcel services can charge, and of course uses that power to insure that they themselves appear to be the cheapest option when delivering regular letters. I say "appear" because the USPS carries a lot of hidden costs that we pre-fund in the form of taxes, so it costs a lot more than the price of a stamp for them to get a letter from point A to B.

I can see a federally run health insurance organization doing similar things.

Obama himself in his press conference on Monday said that 75-80% of Americans are satisfied with their health care arrangements. Polls back this up (although to be fair, he might have just been citing various poll results). A similar percentage of people are polling as opposed to a (or at least his) federal health insurance ideas (not that those ideas are particularly clear and transparent (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gK8UACQa5gEv1cZ-SRxXDc3XDwRwD98TPSP80)). I just don't see the urgent need for all the spending this would entail when the deficit needs a haircut.

[Klark]

By way of analogy, look at the USPS. Technically, they have competition in the form of FedEx and UPS and whomever else. But the USPS has the legal power to dictate the minimum that those other parcel services can charge, and of course uses that power to insure that they themselves appear to be the cheapest option when delivering regular letters. I say "appear" because the USPS carries a lot of hidden costs that we pre-fund in the form of taxes, so it costs a lot more than the price of a stamp for them to get a letter from point A to B.

Having done many stories on the USPS price increases, I've always been told by the USPS that it does not receive funding from taxes. The whole thing is operated as a separate business entity, which is why it's so far in debt at the moment, and why price increases will continue to happen in the near future.

This was backed up by Brian Sperry, USPS spokesman for the Mid-Western region when he sent me budget forms that show where the money comes from.

I won't say they didn't lie, but from what I've seen, USPS doesn't receive tax money.

[Chriz]

I won't say they didn't lie, but from what I've seen, USPS doesn't receive tax money.

It appears at least their pensions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/other.html) (scroll down to POSTAL SERVICE) are funded out of the federal budget. I would bet that their healthcare and other benefits are, as well.

So strictly speaking, yes, the function of getting a letter from point A to B does not depend on tax money, but they operate with a reduced overhead because of public funds.

[UNODRAGONE]

please forgive my ignorance with this question and no dunce cap, but as a veteran I get free (well practically) health care through the VA, is that the type of government run health care that you think should be in place? I'm not sure how to make my question clearer, I hope that makes sense.

[Klark]

It appears at least their pensions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/other.html) (scroll down to POSTAL SERVICE) are funded out of the federal budget. I would bet that their healthcare and other benefits are, as well.

From what I can research, the only monies paid to the Postal Service from the federal budget are for free or reduced-rate mail handlings, so essentially the tax money it's given is for a program in place for blind people and government mailings

- However -

It's a complicated situation in that the USPS is a government operation, but it does almost-solely fund itself, including pensions, health care and such. However, the USPS must report it's budget each year to the government and it's budget may even be included in the federal budget.

The bill that paragraph refers to states that the USPS and Dept. of Treasury needed to detail to what extent each should be responsible for benefits attributable to the military service of current and former employees.

That act further states that any savings as a result of the act be used to reduce postal debt, hold postage rates or be held in escrow as well as be considered operating expenses depending on the year those savings were made.

What that paragraph on the page you linked says is that the USPS, should it need to, can access those funds otherwise held in escrow so that it can fully fund its substantial retiree health benefits liabilities.

It doesn't say who currently partially funds it's health benefits liabilities, but almost assuredly, it would be the federal government.

Would such an umbrella-type situation on health care be a positive for the US? For me that's hard to say because the USPS is fighting itself out of a huge hole of debt - in the billions. It would lead to higher-cost health care without a doubt.

I hadn't thought of the VA. How is the health care at the VA?

[Chriz]

From what I can research, the only monies paid to the Postal Service from the federal budget are for free or reduced-rate mail handlings, so essentially the tax money it's given is for a program in place for blind people and government mailings

So the federal government gets to use USPS services for "free"? I would assume that means the government has to account for its postage expenses in some sense.

Aha...

However, the USPS must report it's budget each year to the government and it's budget may even be included in the federal budget.

Well, that explains that. :p

So it looks like the fedgov's use of the USPS is passed along to the taxpayer. I guess technically that means it's not the USPS that's being funded by taxes, but the fedgov's use of the USPS. But since it's "free," does the government need to report it as a distinct expense? And would their use of, say, FedEx be reported?

Would such an umbrella-type situation on health care be a positive for the US? For me that's hard to say because the USPS is fighting itself out of a huge hole of debt - in the billions. It would lead to higher-cost health care without a doubt.

I wonder if the USPS's debt is guaranteed by the federal government. Meaning, if they can't recover from it (and it doesn't look like they are), will it just get folded into the national debt along with SS, Medicare, etc?

[UNODRAGONE]

Here is an overview though it depends on your service and if you meet the requirements for free health care.

http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/CopayRates/CopayRates.pdf

http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/costs/

[NeonLightChild]

I'm more intrigued at how the private insurance system has broken down to begin with.

I know there are very few of us who remember this, but back in the day, we used to pay for preventative appointments in full and then use insurance when we really needed it. Kind of like car/home insurance today, where we don't use it unless we really need it or else. I realize the issue there is almost the same as today, where people couldn't afford to pay the doctors, even though prices were much more realistic.

I'm wondering when people suddenly became entitled to have preventative exams, and the logic of that decision from the insurance companies to allow it. I know that such appointments mean that there is less likelihood of a huge payout sometime in the future (hospital stay, surgery, testing, etc), and neither system is really perfect. Anyone here old enough to really comment on that?

[Klark]

So it looks like the fedgov's use of the USPS is passed along to the taxpayer. I guess technically that means it's not the USPS that's being funded by taxes, but the fedgov's use of the USPS. But since it's "free," does the government need to report it as a distinct expense? And would their use of, say, FedEx be reported?

It certainly does appear that way. I would assume their use of FedEx is reported somehow, maybe under administrative lines like office supplies because FedEx is a private company and was founded as a private company. But if I were the USPS, I'd be pissed off that they weren't using me. :D

I wonder if the USPS's debt is guaranteed by the federal government. Meaning, if they can't recover from it (and it doesn't look like they are), will it just get folded into the national debt along with SS, Medicare, etc?

That is such a good question! I will remember to ask Brian that the next time I have to contact him for a story with the USPS. Honestly, I have no clue.

So more on the VA. It looks like it's fully funded through the government, minus the co-pays. I would assume that under a total government-run health care system, there would be no co-pays since medical care payment would be deducted through taxes.

But it could be a close enough model to look at as a potential future US health care system.

[Chriz]

It certainly does appear that way. I would assume their use of FedEx is reported somehow, maybe under administrative lines like office supplies because FedEx is a private company and was founded as a private company. But if I were the USPS, I'd be pissed off that they weren't using me. :D

It's possible that the federal government is actually prohibited from using someone other than USPS, if USPS is equipped to handle the job.

I will remember to ask Brian that the next time I have to contact him for a story with the USPS. Honestly, I have no clue.

Something also to keep in mind. The fedgov is probably the single largest user of snailmail services. The IRS alone probably makes up some large chunk. If the USPS is forced to deliver government mail for free, and is also in mounting debt, sooner or later they're going to turn to the government for help in getting out of that debt. The fedgov basically owns it.

So more on the VA. It looks like it's fully funded through the government, minus the co-pays. I would assume that under a total government-run health care system, there would be no co-pays since medical care payment would be deducted through taxes.

I don't think so. Most mass transit systems are state funded (and maybe have some federal help), but also require tokens or tickets. The copay system is in place partly to generate immediate funds for the specific office or institution that's providing the service, but it also functions as a throttle on consumer use. If the subway didn't require tokens, it would be constantly packed.

I wouldn't expect copays to go away.

[Klark]

I don't think so. Most mass transit systems are state funded (and maybe have some federal help), but also require tokens or tickets. The copay system is in place partly to generate immediate funds for the specific office or institution that's providing the service, but it also functions as a throttle on consumer use. If the subway didn't require tokens, it would be constantly packed.

I wouldn't expect copays to go away.

That's a good point about immediate funds, but mass transit system fundings might not be an appropriate comparison.

From dealings with our own public transportation system in Sidney, I know that the federal government covers 50 percent of the cost of operations. The state further covers an additional 25 percent. That leaves 25 percent to be made up on the city government level.

Our public transit does require a small fee to ride, which helps bring in roughly 50 percent of the city's 25 percent responsibility. The rest is made up from collected taxes.

That's probably how most mass transit systems are funded too.

But taking your point into consideration, I believe you're right. The co-pay wouldn't disappear.

[DarkWolf]

So is this basically US thinking about having their own version of our NHS?

If so, seriously, go for it.

NHS is far from perfect but much better than the current US standard. Here if you have an accident, ya don't have to worry about paying for it for the next X amount of years. It's all "free" here, including prescriptions.

My mother had to take a lot of medication. I worked out how much it would cost, per week, for her to have those meds in US and I think it worked out to be hundreds of dollars (memory is vague, it was years ago). Unable to afford that and since some would require being imported some health insurances would not cover it - so, it's either be unable to pay for rent and food or live in extreme agonising pain. Here in the UK, she didn't have to pay a thing.

It's obviously not actually free, it's based on a small percentage of your wages. But it's minute and basically means you get a health insurance that covers everything that isn't purely cosmetic. Even free patches/chewing gum and support things for giving up smoking, etc.

The quality of service is not as good as going private, but it's still decent. The waiting list is prioritised based on importance so if were suddenly told by a doctor you need an operation withing a few days to save your life, you get one usually the next day. It pushes back those who are having "tests" and things - things that are not likely to cause anything serious by being delayed.

Our healthcare is primarily government run, and while there's horror stories and whatnot (which you get everywhere in the world regardless of the type of healthcare) it's still a hugely massive benefit and has extremely tiny cost for what you get.

I don't see why it would be a bad thing for USA to have government health care available as a state-based thing. Especially since I don't see how or why it would suddenly stop private sectors (it doesn't here, actually the private sector is doing remarkably well).

[Klark]

I hadn't thought that with a government-run health care system, there could still be private practices.

[Lore]

They can and as DW said they do very well. Especially areas such as Dentistry, Orthodontics and in Opticians.

In Ireland hospital consultants often work in public hospitals for a few hours then leave their workload to junior doctors while they attend private practices and work their. The government has being trying to stamp down on this though.

[Klark]

They can and as DW said they do very well. Especially areas such as Dentistry, Orthodontics and in Opticians.

In Ireland hospital consultants often work in public hospitals for a few hours then leave their workload to junior doctors while they attend private practices and work their. The government has being trying to stamp down on this though.

Is private practice costly for patients?

[Lore]

Well I had Orthodontic treatment done privately that lasted about 2.5 years and I think the total cost was €3000, give or take a few hundred.

[DarkWolf]

Depends on which one you use, but it can be. Still works out much much less that what the basic cost is for US, though.

And you get a lot for that money. Including no concerns about waiting lists, you get private rooms, and a general all-round "personal" service.

[Klark]

Well I had Orthodontic treatment done privately that lasted about 2.5 years and I think the total cost was €3000, give or take a few hundred.

It's $100 for an office visit where I live. The last time I had major dentistry done, it cost me $2,500.

I'm not sure, but it sounds on par. I think that braces are a costly venture here, so your prices could be better.

I just looked into an eye doctor visit here, and it's $150 just for the exam. Seems to have shot up in price in recent years. I don't remember it being that high four years ago.

Are there any private hospitals or are all hospitals government-run?

[Lore]

It's $100 for an office visit where I live. The last time I had major dentistry done, it cost me $2,500.

I'm not sure, but it sounds on par. I think that braces are a costly venture here, so your prices could be better.

I just looked into an eye doctor visit here, and it's $150 just for the exam. Seems to have shot up in price in recent years. I don't remember it being that high four years ago.

Are there any private hospitals or are all hospitals government-run?
Yes, our Minister for Health is actually encouraging the construction of more private hospitals. Unfortunately Ireland is not a good example of a government run healthcare system. We have overworked nurses and bed shortages and recent scandals involving the misdiagnosis of many cancer patients due to subpar equipment.
That's not to say a government run healthcare system doens't work it's just ours isn't exactly working due to beaucratic mismanagement and a health minister who should've been put out pasture years ago. :(

[Chriz]

It's obviously not actually free, it's based on a small percentage of your wages.

Can you define "small percentage?" I pay for my own health insurance (it's a group plan through my employer, but I pay for it all myself) and it costs me about 3% of my income. And I took the most expensive of the three plans offered -- the cheapest was less than half that. I make about an average salary for a tech position with 10-15 years experience in Boston.

Can you get decent health coverage for 3% of the average salary in the UK?

wPC6CqAFA4E

[Chriz]

Some info.

50% Favor Obama Health Reform Plan, 45% Oppose It (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/50_favor_obama_health_reform_plan_45_oppose_it)

Last year, my home state of Massachusetts implemented a plan where residents needed to acquire health insurance, or pay an income tax penalty. Covering your own health costs isn't an option, unless you do it through a state-approved insurer, of course. But you're not allowed to get away with simply paying out of pocket, even if you can afford it.

Needless to say, most people aren't happy with it...

Massachusetts: 26% Consider State’s Health Care Reform a Success (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/massachusetts/massachusetts_26_consider_state_s_health_care_refo rm_a_success)

[Klark]

Last year, my home state of Massachusetts implemented a plan where residents needed to acquire health insurance, or pay an income tax penalty. Covering your own health costs isn't an option, unless you do it through a state-approved insurer, of course. But you're not allowed to get away with simply paying out of pocket, even if you can afford it.


And this is what's being proposed for American health reform, isn't it? The thinking behind that being that insurance costs should go down because more people are buying health insurance. The healthy help support the non-healthy, so to speak?

[Chriz]

And this is what's being proposed for American health reform, isn't it? The thinking behind that being that insurance costs should go down because more people are buying health insurance. The healthy help support the non-healthy, so to speak?

Good question. Does anyone know if under the proposed federal plan, you're only taxed extra if you don't voluntarily cover yourself?

Here's an ad decrying the Massachusetts system.

CWIW3ueUjSo

[Klark]

Here's a link to more Obama health care talk. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/07/68493330/1)

Thoughts?

[Klark]

Picked up this story from the wire this morning. I found a link, so I shortened the AP version.

The Reuters Article On It. (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56675320090707)

White House, hospitals reach deal on health care

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's hospitals will give up $155 billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments to help defray the cost of President Barack Obama's health care plan, a concession the White House hopes will boost an overhaul effort that's hit a roadblock in Congress.

Vice President Joe Biden announced the deal at the White House on Wednesday, with administration officials and hospital administrators at his side. Yet on Capitol Hill, Democratic senators were in open rebellion over a proposed new tax on health care benefits.

"Reform is coming. It is on track; it is coming. We have tried for decades to fix a broken system, and we have never, in my entire tenure in public life, been this close," Biden said. And, in a firm message to lawmakers, Biden added, "We must — and we will — enact reform by the end of August."

[Chriz]

Here's a link to more Obama health care talk. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/07/68493330/1)

Thoughts?

On this? Long on rhetoric, short on new data.

[Zombie]

Oh yeah, sure, let the gubberment run it, after all, theve done so well with Social Security, the Postal service, uhhhhhh.....

Oh yeah, they also [I]always[I] come in under budget!:rolleyes:

-Z

[Klark]

Oh yeah, sure, let the gubberment run it, after all, theve done so well with Social Security, the Postal service, uhhhhhh.....

Oh yeah, they also [I]always[I] come in under budget!:rolleyes:

-Z

As already stated here, the Postal service, while government-owned, is not run by the government. It is run as a separate business entity.

[Chriz]

p-bY92mcOdk

[Startraveler]

Obama hasn't made any secret of the fact that if he were starting from scratch he'd prefer a single-payer system.

But a few days ago the CBO wrote:

For the preliminary estimate of the proposal, CBO and the JCT staff assumed that only firms with 50 or fewer employees would be permitted to buy coverage through the exchanges, and we estimated that about 6 million workers and their dependents would obtain coverage in that way. We also estimated that about one third of those enrollees would choose the public plan—an assessment that is consistent with our overall estimate of the share of people in the exchanges choosing that plan.

They estimate that about 30 million people will be in the exchanges in ten years, giving a total of about 12 million people choosing the public option. There's a good deal of uncertainty in these numbers and much depends on the final plan the form takes in the fall but this hardly represents a sneaky way to get everyone on a public option.

[Chriz]

Obama hasn't made any secret of the fact that if he were starting from scratch he'd prefer a single-payer system.

Well, it's not like he's getting much traction there (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/confidence_in_u_s_health_care_system_has_grown_in_ recent_months).

r9bWqcZnrDg