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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

I haven't heard a single rational argument for NOT having a single-payer system.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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. 

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?

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?