HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare

HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Hippiekinkster -> HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 12:27:20 PM)
I am sooooo for this..... http://www.johnconyers.com/healthcare What is H.R. 676? H.R. 676, also called the United States National Health Insurance Act, is a bill to create a single-payer, publicly-financed, privately-delivered universal health care program that would cover all Americans without charging co-pays or deductibles. It guarantees access to the highest quality and most affordable health care services regardless of employment, ability to pay or pre-existing health conditions. Who will be eligible for health care coverage under H.R. 676? All Americans will be eligible for health care coverage. Every person who enrolls in the program and receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and individual ID number, and that is all anyone will need to receive care. No co-pays or deductibles-- what's the catch? Will I actually pay less for health care? There is no catch. Both families and employers will pay significantly less for health care. Currently, the average family of four covered by an employer-provided health care plan spends roughly $4,225 on health care each year, including premiums, services, prescription drugs and supplies. This figure does not include the annual Medicare payroll tax, currently at 1.45%. Under the plan created by H.R. 676, a family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. No deductibles, no co-pays, no worrying about catastrophic coverage. Employers who provide health insurance currently pay, on average, 74% of employee health premiums. For a family of four, the average employer share is $8,510 per year. Under H.R. 676, the employer pays a 4.75% payroll tax, not a premium to health insurance companies. For an employee making the median family income of $56,200 annually, the employer would pay roughly $2,700. Estimates taken from: Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Study by the Center for Economic Research and Policy. How will the universal program be paid for? First, switching to a single-payer system will lead to billions of dollars saved in reduced administrative costs. Those savings will be passed on through the system and allow coverage for all Americans. Additional savings in the overall cost of health care will come from annual reimbursement rate negotiations with physicians and negotiated prices for prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment. Second, a "Medicare For All Trust Fund" will be created to ensure a dedicated source of funding in addition to annual appropriations. Sources of funding will include: • Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs • Closing corporate tax loopholes • Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners • Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax) • Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners • One quarter of one percent stock transaction tax

DesFIP -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 2:21:34 PM)
If it's medicare, I'm betting there will be restrictions on medications. That to keep costs down they will prohibit usage of on patent drugs even if the non patent used for that condition doesn't work on that patient.

monywildcat -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 3:35:14 PM)
This sounds like a wonderful idea, however I am a wee bit hesitant. There has to be a catch somewhere in this plan, surely some entity with a loud voice backed by very deep pockets would kick up a fuss over this. And would this cover dental services? For me, anyway, dental care is cost-prohibitive. My dependents, not so much, they are covered.

samboct -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 3:36:49 PM)
No big deal- the blockbuster model for drugs has been dead for a decade- the large pharma firms just haven't figured it out. Look at the amounts they're spending and how few new drugs they have in a pipeline. Of course if we could actually get away from health insurance, malpractice, and make a medical license less of a lifetime sinecure, we might actually be able to improve health care at a lower cost. A very grumbly Sam who just found out that his health insurance costs are going up next year- again. This makes it a 25% increase in two years- not easy to deal with as a small business. Sam

Hippiekinkster -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 5:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct No big deal- the blockbuster model for drugs has been dead for a decade- the large pharma firms just haven't figured it out. Look at the amounts they're spending and how few new drugs they have in a pipeline. Of course if we could actually get away from health insurance, malpractice, and make a medical license less of a lifetime sinecure, we might actually be able to improve health care at a lower cost. A very grumbly Sam who just found out that his health insurance costs are going up next year- again. This makes it a 25% increase in two years- not easy to deal with as a small business. Sam My Blue Cross is only going up 11% come January. Typically it's been more than 20% per annum. I feel so lucky. [/sarcasm] You're right about the failed pharma model. All they're doing now is subbing an ethyl group for a methyl, or putting two meds in the same tablet, or coming with with an extended release version, or a new dosage (Flexeril 7.5 mg.; new patent. Wow.). Don't remember where I read it, it might be in my medical folder, but in 2002 only 8 novel drugs were approved by the FDA, and 7 were synthesized in Europe. So much for that "recouping R&D expense" BS. I haven't heard a single rational argument for NOT having a single-payer system.

bluepanda -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 5:41:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster I haven't heard a single rational argument for NOT having a single-payer system. We already have the best medical care in the world, and if we try to nationalize our health care system we'll wind up making the entire country socialist. It's true, because I heard it on the radio. I can't believe you didn't know that.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 5:45:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluepanda quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster I haven't heard a single rational argument for NOT having a single-payer system. We already have the best medical care in the world, and if we try to nationalize our health care system we'll wind up making the entire country socialist. It's true, because I heard it on the radio. I can't believe you didn't know that. Glitch in my programming, I guess. I'll work on it.

Lordandmaster -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 6:04:22 PM)
Right, and next we'll all be having extramarital sex. And listening to subversive music. quote: ORIGINAL: bluepanda quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster I haven't heard a single rational argument for NOT having a single-payer system. We already have the best medical care in the world, and if we try to nationalize our health care system we'll wind up making the entire country socialist. It's true, because I heard it on the radio. I can't believe you didn't know that.

HunterS -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 6:18:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluepanda quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster I haven't heard a single rational argument for NOT having a single-payer system. We already have the best medical care in the world, and if we try to nationalize our health care system we'll wind up making the entire country socialist. It's true, because I heard it on the radio. I can't believe you didn't know that. Perhaps the radio station was testing their "gullibility" meter. H.

smartalex -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 6:25:09 PM)
Medicare not only limits prescriptions (and traditional medicare doesn't pay for prescriptions, only the HMO products from commercial alternatives pay for prescriptions, but there's a trade off with flexibility and provider choice) but it severely limits wellness care. For example, Medicare only provides for an 'annual' gyn check every two years, and that gyn check is very limited in what can be provided. If doctors give more care than the guidelines, they can be fined. With that as an example of Congress's medical expertise, I don't want congress determining my health care.

samboct -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 7:09:23 PM)
Smart Alex What's to stop you from whipping out your wallet and paying for the care that you want? I think healthcare should be treated the same way as an education- a good solid education for all comers- want more- it's called private school. Sam

MasterG2kTR -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 7:17:57 PM)
I couldn't agree more. This system would certainly lower costs to individuals. Think about it, have you ever heard of an insurance company losing money? Health insurance is the single largest ripoff to any consumer. Thirty years ago family coverage cost me less than $4 per week, that was with a $100 deductible and 10% co-pay up to $1000 out of pocket. Currently employee +1 (which is less than full family coverage) costs me $74 per week with a $1500 deductible and 20% co-pay up to $3000 out of pocket. That translates to nearly 2000% percent increase. Nothing else other than gas has had such a dramatic increase in cost in that same time span. It is time for a change!

Hippiekinkster -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 7:20:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: smartalex Medicare not only limits prescriptions (and traditional medicare doesn't pay for prescriptions, only the HMO products from commercial alternatives pay for prescriptions, but there's a trade off with flexibility and provider choice) but it severely limits wellness care. For example, Medicare only provides for an 'annual' gyn check every two years, and that gyn check is very limited in what can be provided. If doctors give more care than the guidelines, they can be fined. With that as an example of Congress's medical expertise, I don't want congress determining my health care. So, how would you fix our obviously malfunctioning healthcare "system"? The private sector has had their shot ever since Nixon colluded with Kaiser to maximize profits at the expense of America's health, and the private sector has completely screwed the pooch. http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/andrews050907.html Here's the transcript, if you don't believe me ---- " John D. Ehrlichman: "On the … on the health business …" President Nixon: "Yeah." Ehrlichman: "… we have now narrowed down the vice president's problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser's Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don't think they'll work, but if the President thinks it's a good idea, I'll support him a hundred percent.’" President Nixon: "Well, what's … what's the judgment?" Ehrlichman: "Well, everybody else's judgment very strongly is that we go with it." President Nixon: "All right." Ehrlichman: "And, uh, uh, he's the one holdout that we have in the whole office." President Nixon: "Say that I … I … I'd tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it's, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I'm not to keen on any of these damn medical programs." Ehrlichman: "This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …" President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: "This … this is a …" President Nixon: "I don't [unclear] …" Ehrlichman: "… private enterprise one." President Nixon: "Well, that appeals to me." Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …" President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: "… the less care they give them, the more money they make." President Nixon: "Fine." [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] "… and the incentives run the right way." President Nixon: "Not bad." ( The preceding transcription is from the University of Virginia for the clearest possible presentation (pathway discovered by Vickie Travis). Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c. ) Let me get to the point: What would convince you (and others who are dedicated to the private sector "solution" to the Healthcare crisis) that the French, Canadian, and German models are more cost-effective, deliver the same or superior quality care, and create a healthier society?

smartalex -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 8:03:40 PM)
samboct--It's not about my wallet, it's about putting a single entity in charge of something about which they know relatively little. Hippiekinkster--What evidence do you have of my dedication to the private sector solution to the healthcare crisis? And as far as Canada's superiority, why are the docs in my practice seeing Canadians for surgeries, and why are the patients paying out of pocket? When they can get those same services or better for less? I'm not an advocate for insurance companies or any non-medical professional who thinks they can practice medicine. I'm an advocate for good patient care, and I'm not convinced that this solution is the best possible. It may be, but just because I'm not jumping on the bandwagon doesn't mean I'm a shill for Blue Cross, KP or any other. I'm a skeptic.

corysub -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 8:03:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster I am sooooo for this..... http://www.johnconyers.com/healthcare What is H.R. 676? H.R. 676, also called the United States National Health Insurance Act, is a bill to create a single-payer, publicly-financed, privately-delivered universal health care program that would cover all Americans without charging co-pays or deductibles. It guarantees access to the highest quality and most affordable health care services regardless of employment, ability to pay or pre-existing health conditions. Who will be eligible for health care coverage under H.R. 676? All Americans will be eligible for health care coverage. Every person who enrolls in the program and receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and individual ID number, and that is all anyone will need to receive care. No co-pays or deductibles-- what's the catch? Will I actually pay less for health care? There is no catch. Both families and employers will pay significantly less for health care. Currently, the average family of four covered by an employer-provided health care plan spends roughly $4,225 on health care each year, including premiums, services, prescription drugs and supplies. This figure does not include the annual Medicare payroll tax, currently at 1.45%. Under the plan created by H.R. 676, a family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. No deductibles, no co-pays, no worrying about catastrophic coverage. Employers who provide health insurance currently pay, on average, 74% of employee health premiums. For a family of four, the average employer share is $8,510 per year. Under H.R. 676, the employer pays a 4.75% payroll tax, not a premium to health insurance companies. For an employee making the median family income of $56,200 annually, the employer would pay roughly $2,700. Estimates taken from: Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Study by the Center for Economic Research and Policy. How will the universal program be paid for? First, switching to a single-payer system will lead to billions of dollars saved in reduced administrative costs. You don't seem to understand government...government IS administrative costs...they don't cut them...they put a bunch of people under a manager, a bunch of managers under a senionr manager, a bunch of senior managers under a supervisor, and on and on...THE NAME OF THE GAME IS BIGGER AND BIGGER GOVERNMENT Those savings will be passed on through the system and allow coverage for all Americans. Additional savings in the overall cost of health care will come from annual reimbursement rate negotiations with physicians and negotiated prices for prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment. And what has the government done in this area with respect to Mediacare over the past few decades...?? Where was the saving? Further, medicare for those 85% of the population that has healthcare is a major downtick. The government is now your primary healthcare, they are the gatekeepers and have rediculour rules and regulations on frequency of visits, tests, etc etc...If you have a secondary insurer it matter not since they will not pay a dime if Medicare does not allow the service. Second, a "Medicare For All Trust Fund" will be created to ensure a dedicated source of funding in addition to annual appropriations. Sources of funding will include: • Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs • Closing corporate tax loopholes What would these be??? Depreciation of equipment? • Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners • Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax) • Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners • One quarter of one percent stock transaction tax I used to believe in the tooth fairy..and than I grew up!

corysub -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 8:14:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: smartalex Medicare not only limits prescriptions (and traditional medicare doesn't pay for prescriptions, only the HMO products from commercial alternatives pay for prescriptions, but there's a trade off with flexibility and provider choice) but it severely limits wellness care. For example, Medicare only provides for an 'annual' gyn check every two years, and that gyn check is very limited in what can be provided. If doctors give more care than the guidelines, they can be fined. With that as an example of Congress's medical expertise, I don't want congress determining my health care. So, how would you fix our obviously malfunctioning healthcare "system"? The private sector has had their shot ever since Nixon colluded with Kaiser to maximize profits at the expense of America's health, and the private sector has completely screwed the pooch. http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/andrews050907.html Let me get to the point: What would convince you (and others who are dedicated to the private sector "solution" to the Healthcare crisis) that the French, Canadian, and German models are more cost-effective, deliver the same or superior quality care, and create a healthier society? I guess you never heard of the influx of Canadians coming into America for treatment. There are estimates that almost one million Canadians are on waiting lists for referrals to specialists. Ten percent of patients at the Cleveland Clinic for hip replacements are Canadians, ..if they have the money and need treatment..they come to America. Try getting a high quality doctor or dentist in Germany on the public dole! The good ones DON'T participate in the government programs and only accept cash...and this we know from personal experience. Most importantly, where the heck do people come up with the idea that the United States healthcare system is "malfunctioning". My family has had nothing but the best of timely and professional care in problems from tonsils to lung cancer and have no complaint but only praise for the services rendered. 15% of the population does not have healthcare according to estimates. Well..the government should help them with better clinics but leave the system alone. Beating up on the drug companies that develop most of the life saving drugs used around the world were developed by the research of American companies and scientists. Our biotech industry is the envy of the world.... Universal Healthcare in this country should be put on the garbage heap along with Global Warming insanity.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 8:26:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: smartalex samboct--It's not about my wallet, it's about putting a single entity in charge of something about which they know relatively little. Hippiekinkster--What evidence do you have of my dedication to the private sector solution to the healthcare crisis? And as far as Canada's superiority, why are the docs in my practice seeing Canadians for surgeries, and why are the patients paying out of pocket? When they can get those same services or better for less? I'm not an advocate for insurance companies or any non-medical professional who thinks they can practice medicine. I'm an advocate for good patient care, and I'm not convinced that this solution is the best possible. It may be, but just because I'm not jumping on the bandwagon doesn't mean I'm a shill for Blue Cross, KP or any other. I'm a skeptic. What evidence? "With that as an example of Congress's medical expertise, I don't want congress determining my health care." Sounds to me like you don't want any governmental involvement. As for Canadians crossing over, that may very well be for elective surgeries. Most anecdotal "evidence" doesn't stand when scrutinized, however. Record numbers of Amis are engaging in "medical tourism" to India, Costa Rica, etc. http://medicaltourismassociation.com/ Then, of course, we have the persistent myth of medical malpractice insurance being the driver of higher and higher medical costs. Uh-huh. " After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine." ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT. There's more interesting data about "frivolous" lawsuits. http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

defiantbadgirl -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 8:30:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluepanda We already have the best medical care in the world, Then why do people on average live longer in countries with single payer systems? Why can a person lose everything they worked their whole lives for just because of an illness? Can't the stress of becoming destitute lead to additional illness? How can this situation possibly be the best in the world? and if we try to nationalize our health care system we'll wind up making the entire country socialist. Who said anything abou socialist? If you read the OP, it clearly states publicly financed privately delivered. Are you by chance a health insurance agent?

bluepanda -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 8:34:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: bluepanda We already have the best medical care in the world, Then why do people on average live longer in countries with single payer systems? Why can a person lose everything they worked their whole lives for just because of an illness? Can't the stress of becoming destitute lead to additional illness? How can this situation possibly be the best in the world? and if we try to nationalize our health care system we'll wind up making the entire country socialist. Who said anything abou socialist? If you read the OP, it clearly states publicly financed privately delivered. Are you by chance a health insurance agent? No. I'm just sarcastic. Relax, I'm on your side! I suppose it was sort of an inside joke, Schluss and I go back a ways and have teamed up in countless debates on this issue over the years. Christ. Do I sound old now or what?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare (12/11/2008 8:48:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluepanda quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: bluepanda We already have the best medical care in the world, Then why do people on average live longer in countries with single payer systems? Why can a person lose everything they worked their whole lives for just because of an illness? Can't the stress of becoming destitute lead to additional illness? How can this situation possibly be the best in the world? and if we try to nationalize our health care system we'll wind up making the entire country socialist. Who said anything abou socialist? If you read the OP, it clearly states publicly financed privately delivered. Are you by chance a health insurance agent? No. I'm just sarcastic. Relax, I'm on your side! I suppose it was sort of an inside joke, Schluss and I go back a ways and have teamed up in countless debates on this issue over the years. Christ. Do I sound old now or what? You sure make me sound old. Tehachapi.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125