Wish I could find the whole current Harper's Index online. Here's a bunch of stats someone compiled for the state of N. Carolina. Has anyone compiled the same for Oregon?

http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2009/06/22/some-data-on-health-care-and-health-care-reform-in-north-carolina/

If you read the "study," Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study by David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa, you will find it is worthless except to be exploited by those who want to make you think Medical Bankruptcies are rampant. On page three of the "study" is table 2 from which all the headlines seem to be drawn. It reads:

Table 2 Medical Causes of Bankruptcy, 2007 Percent of All Bankruptcies Debtor said medical bills were reason for Bankruptcy – 29.0% Medical bills $5000 or 10% of annual family income – 34.7% Mortgaged home to pay medical bills – 5.7% Medical bill problems (any of above 3) – 57.1% Debtor or spouse lost 2 weeks of income due to illness or became completely disabled – 38.2% Debtor or spouse lost 2 weeks of income to care for ill family member – 6.8% Income loss due to illness (either of above 2) – 40.3% Debtor said medical problem of self or spouse was reason for bankruptcy – 32.1% Debtor said medical problem of other family member was reason for bankruptcy – 10.8% Any of above 62.1% Percentage based on recent homeowners rather than all debtors.

The asterisk alone invalidates the data. People who are recent homeowners and who have filed for bankruptcy are a very select group (not the wide and diverse population that the authors want you to think this represents). They are also a group that is populated with many people who have proven that they can't handle money. Also, saying that they filed for bankruptcy because of $5,000 in unpaid medical debt sounds more like and excuse than the reason. Do you think the mortgage might be the real reason?

It appears that these Doctors set out to show that medical costs are a major cause of bankruptcies and by warping the study enough they feel they have accomplished their goals. They should stick to medicine and Harpers should at least read the study they quote before drawing the same unwarranted conclusions.

I responded similarly to Senator Merkley's office when his letter to me quoted this same junk science (http://ttoes.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/senator-merkley-replies-on-healthcare-reform/)

Okay, I'll bite, Tom.

I'm not questioning what you've written (although I want to investigate this oft-cited study closer). But can you show us some stats that, in your opinion, more accurately reflect the breakout of US bankruptcies between those that are health cost related and otherwise? Do you believe the true percentage of bankruptcies in the US is either/or a) comparable to the percentages in other industrialized nations b) reasonable/satisfactory/acceptable?

An interesting bit from the study:

"Few of the uninsured lacked coverage because of a preexisting condition (2.8%)"

To hear the arguments on BO, pre-existing conditions are among the largest problems in getting insurance.

But this would seem to indicate that it's not so.

I think that eliminating the public option for the sake of gaining votes in the Senate really defeats the purpose of doing health care reform in the first place.

And I think that having no health care insurance program reform at all just because a public option doesn't have the votes REALLY defeats the purpose of doing health care reform in the first place.

Even without the public option, this is the foot in the door. Without the foot in the door, we are back to ground zero - nada - nothing.

Kari wrote:

"Another problem with it is the problem of "recission", in which they deny a claim because they claim that you had that condition and failed to disclose it previously."

Insurance fraud by an individual is a crime. If the condition was diagnosed and/or treated and was required to be disclosed, but was hidden, then the individual is attempting fraud.

On the other hand, if a condition wasn't diagnosed and/or treated, then it is not a pre-existing condition and qualifies for coverage.

Insurance law is already very specific on this point. To rescind coverage for something that isn't pre-existing is illegal (unless it is otherwise excluded).

So, other than making it illegal (which it already is) what 'solution' do you have in mind?

The law is already existing to deal with this. It's a matter of enforcement.

Sal Peralta wrote:

"2.8% of 46 million is rough 1.3 million people who can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition."

And many states already have high risk pools that will cover these individuals.

Are you aware of this?

Probably not. The propaganda you listen to from the left usually doesn't mention it.

If meaningful health reform fails, perhaps our Democratic majority Congressmen and women could also repeal the law requiring emergency rooms to offer treatment to every person who comes to the hospital with acute symptoms. As the dead pile up in the hospital parking lots around the country, the uninsured population will also be declining, one corpse at a time! One down and 46,999,999 to go!

May God Bless Adam Smith and our economic system.

Sal Peralta wrote:

"One wonders how many people would have to be affected before some folks would recognize this as a problem with our health care.

I suppose that they should "pull themselves up by their boot straps".

I guess Joe forgot the "compassionate" part of compassionate conservatism"

A government run system is sure to have all the compassion of the IRS, Sal.

Are you looking forward to that, when you've got no other option and they are the only game in town?

Dan Petegorsky wrote:

"From HealthReform.gov"

A truly unbiased source. lol

They were 'discriminated against', eh?

No, they did not qualify.

If you go to the bank for a loan, and you have no job, are they 'discriminating against you' when they turn you down?

C'mon, enough with the propaganda already, Dan.

If someone ALREADY has been diagnosed with an illness, then insuring someone against the 'risk' (that's what insurance does, it covers risk) isn't possible. They aren't 'at risk'. They already have it.

You can't buy life insurance for a dead person.

You can't buy auto insurance for the car that just was demolished.

You can't buy home insurance for the condo that just burned down.

What part of insurance do you not understand? Apparently most or all of it.

If all of us wait to get sick before buying insurance, how long do you think ANY insurance plan will be able to pay claims out of premiums collected?

Not very long.

Greg D wrote:

"meaningful health reform"

I am hopeful that we will get meaningful reform.

But I don't see it coming from the left.

Allow individuals and small businesses (and their employees) to pool together to purchase group health insurance at favorable rates like large corporations do.

Cost to the taxpayer = Zero.

That would be meaningful reform. Group insurance coverage would no longer depend on where you worked.

There is a bottom line now.

The Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress, including -in theory- a veto-proof 60 seats in the senate, and the option of passing health care with 51 votes under budget reconciliation. The Democrats must produce a satisfactory health care bill, satisfactory to a majority of Americans, or they will prove they can't govern on the most vital issue of our time. The likely outcome of that is a loss of the mandate to govern. It's what the Rs are counting on, and why there will be no bi-partisan bill. 1994 Redux.

So how about talking to each other, Senate and House Dems, and passing a plan that will sell? Instead of all this grandstanding and posturing, this kabuki dance that is going on, or you will be gone in the next election cycle or two.

Are you listening, Kurt Schrader, Ron Wyden Jeff Merkley, David Wu, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio??

Joe,

Your comments perfectly quantify why having "health insurance" as a means to healthcare delivery completely fails. You've convinced me to scrap the insurance industry entirely!!!

Kudos.

Gee, Joe. I'm feeling kinda neglected here. I go and try to be respectful and all. But you spend your time volleying posts, ripostes and counter charges with everyone else.

You make lots of claims and attempt to poke holes in others' arguments and views. I'm still waiting to see if you have any stats or studies to support your own.

"If government is as inefficient as you seem to think, there is no reason to suppose that private insurers cannot compete with a public option. What they will not be able to do is use the lack of competition in the current system to reap inordinate profits at the expense of individual and corporate consumers of health insurance."

Not only that, but why are free market supporters so afraid of competition? Because insurance companies might have to provide the same customer service expected of sales and service in other sectors of the economy?

Scott, in a nutshell the problem with the public option is that even the CBP estimates that it will COST between $1 and $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Obama and the dems stated that they would not raise taxes on the middle class. In order to pay for a public option there must be taxes raised across the board.

Personally I might not have a problem with that, the "were all in this together" syndrome. However it makes it tough on the dems who don't really want the bulk of America to have to pony up and pay for public option.

"...in a nutshell the problem with the public option is that even the CBP estimates that it will COST between $1 and $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

What will the Iraq war cost after we include medical and psychiatric care for wounded veterans?

Same for Afghanistnam?

What will the cost be if AfPak expands beyond the current border area?

It is interesting that people who are concerned about the cost of creating a humane and civilized health care system seem to not be concerned with the greater costs of barbaric and illegal wars of aggression.

I just participated in a teleconference townhall with Rep. Kurt Schrader. He took a firm stance on a public option. He deflected the teabaggers very well without being defensive. They took my question about my sister in law with life threatening cancer. Good answer.

In my professional life I consulted with nursing homes on mental health issues. Any number of times I came across right wing elderly (including one former head of the GOP in Oregon) who railed against government (and taxes) all their lives, even on their sick bed. Yet, when it came time they needed 24 hr. medical care in a nursing care facility, to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, they and their families were the loudest to demand it from Medicaid and Medicare. (Medicare does not fund most long term nursing care.) Without it these yahoos would have died in filth, and their families would have been impoverished and homeless on the street. When you become old, sick, and infirm, suddenly all that self reliant talk goes out the window. The motto of the Republican Party is: " I want it for me, but not for thee."

Kurt-

I appreciate your correspondence, as always. When the discussion came up about the public option being dropped, I guessed correctly that many of the people pushing for health care reform would be completely outraged at the thought. As for me, I haven't made up my mind about the whole situation. My sister is actually at Harvard Medical School studying health care policy, and I'll have her on my talk show next month to talk about it. Kari Chisolm is actually scheduled to be on a few weeks later to talk about the horse race aspects of the 2010 election. So, yeah, I'll just reserve judgement on the issue until I hear what my sister has to say. We'll cover a wide range of topics, like the plusses and minuses of the public option, single payer, etc. All I know is that the status quo is completely unacceptable, and that people with health insurance still end up going bankrupt over hospital bills, and that people who work for a living often don't have health insurance, yet pay for other people to have it. That, to me, is a violation of the social contract that binds us all together.

LT wrote:

"why are free market supporters so afraid of competition?"

Competition is fine. But setting up a government subsidized entity to undercut the market isn't 'competition'. It's the intentional destruction of private enterprise to establish a government monopoly.

Think about it. Government would never approve the merger of the two companies if the result was detrimental to fair competition in the market.

But that's just what a government-run insurance plan would be.

If the government came to your town and set up a business doing what your employer does, and charging half as much, how long do you think you'd have your job? How long would your employer remain in business?

tl (in sw) wrote:

"Gee, Joe. I'm feeling kinda neglected here. "

lol , sorry tl. Not quite sure what you expect from me, but I'm usually not what people expect.

I didn't necessarily dispute any of Tom's stats, I simply pointed out one that he conveniently omitted.

It blows a giant hole in one of the main arguments I've seen used here at BO to justify ripping down our entire health care system and replacing it with a government monopoly.

The number of people without insurance due to pre-existing conditions is relatively small, and many of them qualify for high-risk pools that their state ALREADY offers.

So why are liberals trying to dismantle the entire system based on a few cases?

Because there's power and money to be had, that's why. And they think they can make themselves appear compassionate in the process. They are addicted to OPM (Other People's Money).

The stats he quoted were very interesting. The average bankruptcy was due to less than $20,000 in debt.

I have known people with NO insurance who went to the hospital and had a baby, and walked out with a huge bill and a payment plan.

They didn't declare bankruptcy, and it took years to pay off the birth, but they did it because they felt obligated to pay their own bill.

If others feel justified in declaring bankruptcy instead, they are the ones who will have to live with the consequences.

Hospitals, at least in my experience, are pretty good at working with you if you are willing to pay your bill.

ti,

Tried to post a reply twice earlier and got a message that it could not be accepted. Hmmmmm. Did I say something wrong?

The point of my comment was merely to suggest that too many people are using too much junk science to support their points of view - on both sides. I am uninformed as to how we compare with other industrialized nations. I am not sure it is even important. Knowing we have x% more or less bankruptcies than Togo will not help us achieve reform solutions. Knowing the cause of rising medical costs will. Let's discuss that.

The source for my comments was: http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

It is hard to believe that two MDs from Harvard, a JD from Harvard Law, and an Ohio Univ Sociologist are stupid. For me, that leaves the option that they had a point to make and "designed a study" to fit their point.

Let's debate the merits of reforming our medical system. Trying to scare the other side, whether with statistics showing rampant bankruptcy or death panels choosing who will live and who will die, is a sideshow distracting from a worthy discussion.

Dan wrote:

"Your comments perfectly quantify why having "health insurance" as a means to healthcare delivery completely fails. You've convinced me to scrap the insurance industry entirely!!!"

Yeah, 90+ percent of the citizens of this country have insurance, but it 'completely fails' according to you. (The large number of illegal aliens which liberals usually include in their figures of 'the uninsured', and the ways in which that is destroying the health care system by Democratic design, are the subject of another post entirely.)

So you want to destroy what the overwhelming majority of US citizens uses in order to politically empower your party.

What a pathetic position.

No, I haven't 'convinced you' of anything. You were already wanting to destroy what you did not understand.

Joe--here is what I mean by competition:

If you don't like a PC, you can buy a Mac.

If you don't like the bagless vacuum cleaners heavily promoted in some quarters, you can buy one with disposable bags (I once worked in a store selling vacuums). If you think the restaurant had lousy service or the food was not as good as before, you never have to go there again--same with the store where you went for a major purchase but no one would answer your questions.

There are states where there is really only 1 company selling insurance on the private market. As I recall, Sen. Grassley represents one of those states.

There is an alternative to public option but not one I think the free market people will like.

Regulate the private insurance market so there are no more horror stories. The way banks have been regulated since long before any of us were born. Make it illegal to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. If an insurance company claims they can't cover someone who they claim has died (happened to a friend's family) make them produce a death certificate. No caps on how much money can be paid out on a claim (as happens to some cancer patients and others). Basic care for all (having known a child that was born early, I wonder where the "pro-lifers" stand on requiring all children to have coverage for all births. Anyone here have an idea of the expense for a child born more than 3 weeks early?

Provide accident coverage for all. Stop thiw nonsense where someone slips in a store and the insurance company expects the person who slipped to be examined, "and I am pretty sure we will pay for it"---there should be a way where being treated is not a gamble.

Provide simple things (room air conditioner so a medically fragile person doesn't have to be taken to the ER for heat stroke).

Lots of other prevention measures. Electronic medical records that are compatible.

Is that what the anti-government people want? Or that they want the status quo?

And did I hear someone requested a CBO estimate on Single Payer over the August recess?

Well i supposed in this global crisis we need to make sure that the insurance company are able to accommodate those people insurances and we have to be smart of choosing the right insurance company too.

Leo Schuman wrote:

"That doesn't even make sense, Joe. You claim competition is fine, but are afraid of a strong competitor."

Government subsidy goes beyond competition, Leo. You know that.

I have asked several times , but no one has the courage to answer, what would happen to your employer if the government came to town and set up a company doing what you do, and charging half price?

How long would you have your job?

How long would your employer continue to exist?

Your employer has invested his own money to build a business.

Government coming in and undercutting private enterprise to drive them out of business is no different than thievery.

Just because they pass a law allowing it doesn't make it right either.

If you favor using the government to compete with private business, you favor legalized theft.

I do not want a health care system run by the same folks who run the IRS. Maybe you do, but most Americans seem to agree with me.

The more they hear of the Democratic plans, the less they like them.

Leo Schuman wrote:

"We have the right to .... combine our purchasing power as citizens."

Yes, you do.

But you don't have the right to use the government to run companies out of business.

Use your own private funds (and the private funds of those who agree with you) to establish a buying group and I have no problem with it.

You want to get into the health care business and compete? Fine. Do it the way all the other health insurers had to do it. With private funds, starting from zero, with no government subsidy.

Don't pretend you're 'establishing a level playing field' by taking billions of tax dollars to form a mega-corporation overnight.

Start from scratch and build your business with your own money.

LT wrote:

"Joe--here is what I mean by competition If you don't like a PC, you can buy a Mac"

Yes, that is competition. Two private companies where someone risked their own money and poured in their sweat to make a product people wanted.

Neither company was given billions of taxpayer dollars to start a computer company.

Yes, that is competition. What the Democrats are proposing is not.

Paul G wrote:

"US Census fact"

Your source states: "The uninsured rate for the nativeborn population declined to 12.7 percent in 2007"

I will admit that I was estimating (basically guessing) and will accept that and change my statement from 90+ to 87.3% . I wasn't actually too far off.

My question is why you, with this data at your fingertips would attempt to mislead by only citing 'general population' figures for those 'under 65'?

My statement, as you are well aware, was about 'citizens' not about the 'general population', and not about only those 'under 65'.

So while accusing me of lying, you post figures that do not address my specific statement and which paint an incorrect picture of the number of citizens which have insurance.

In essence, you erected a strawman, Paul G.

Now, since 87.3% of citizens have insurance, my criticism of Dan's statement stands.

He claims that the insurance model 'completely fails' when in reality it is utilized by 87.3% of US citizens.

It seems to me that he has an odd view of 'completely fail'. The only reason I can see that Democrats wish to tear down a system that the overwhelming majority of US citizens use would be to empower themselves politically.

The good of American citizens is a secondary consideration, if that, in the view of Democrats. Acquiring power is first and foremost.

The Democratic attitude is 'we know what's best for you'. They want to pose as generous while using other people's money.

I have no intention of allowing liberals to establish a government monopoly on health care.

If you want to build a company with your own money to compete with existing health insurors, go for it. I encourage you to do it and I hope you are wildly successful.

But you aren't going to get billions of taxpayer dollars to create a mega-corporation overnight as your toy.

Use your own money and quit trying to steal public money to build an empire for yourselves.

Paul G wrote:

"you can still be denied for such conditions as carpal tunnel syndrome which are not covered in the high risk pools."

More likely you would be able to get health insurance that covers nearly everything except the CTS. It would be excluded from the policy(and rightly so) if it had already been diagnosed/treated before you applied for insurance.

You can't buy life insurance for a dead person.

And you should not be able to wait til you are sick and then enroll in health insurance.

What part of that do you not understand?

Paul G wrote:

"This is why most capitalist nations have opted for single payer plans."

I couldn't care less what 'most nations' have done.

We don't have to change our form of government to be like the French or the Brits or whoever.

If you like their system better, move there.

There is a reason this country was created differently.

It's because we wanted it to be different than the other countries we came from.

Hello?

In my humble opinion, Democrats want the government to take over the health insurance industry to gain power and Republicans want to derail anything Mr. Obama does in Healthcare because they want some of the power back that they lost to him.

There is, in fact, an opportunity here to improve our system of healthcare. We can make it more cost effective. We can make it more responsive to more people. We can retain its world-class innovation. The way to do this, however, is not by demonizing the Insurance Industry or by scaring seniors with talk of death panels.

If Health Insurers could compete without government interference, our costs would all be lower. Government mandates, HIPA laws, and liberal litigation law have a major impact on the cost of health insurance. Since every proposal I have seen from the House or Senate takes those as a given, I am convinced that our Political Leaders have no intent to solve any problems with our healthcare system. No matter what stripe they wear, this is about the power it represents.

I would love to see a Harpers article that laid out the real opportunities to make our system better rather than seeing them just repeat junk science to support their objective. Wouldn't it also be nice if Blue Oregon readers were Liberal (read "open minded") and would discuss the issues with a light to discover solutions rather than to maintain their position of power.

T.A. Barnhart wrote:

"i would trust, by a factor of a gazillion, a govt-run public option over any - ANY - private market-based option. corporations exist to maximize profit. period. it is that simple."

Doctors go into medicine expecting to make a good living. Much better than the average Joe.

So if you get sick, you'd better not go see one of those money grubbing snakes.

Farmers produce food to make a profit.

I hope you're not supporting any of those capitalist *&/#s.

Barnhart, you are priceless entertainment, my friend.

paul g. writes: "This is why most capitalist nations have opted for single payer plans."

I'd like to know which ones these are, but here are three that don't from the N.Y. Times.

"... if the health systems of the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland are any guide. None of these countries uses a government-run, Medicare-like health insurance plan. They all rely on purely private, nonprofit or for-profit insurers that are goaded by tight regulation to work toward socially desired ends. And they do so at average per-capita health-care costs far below those of the United States — costs in Germany and the Netherlands are less than half of those here."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/

So how come we have the problems we do? Could it be other factors?

5 common fears about health care reform - Consumer Reports: http://www.consumerreports.org/health/insurance/health-care-reform/5-common-fears-about-health-reform/reform-5-common-fears.htm

Tom, a common belief is that medical malpractice is one major factor driving the increase in healthcare costs. However, at least one study finds:

Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of overall health care costs, and medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs.

http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/090722.html

Joe, I have no objection to well paid medical care providers. You might be surprised to know, Joe, that even in England and other countries whose medical services you deride, doctors are well paid. Maybe not as much as here, but they still do very well.

What I do object to, is insurance companies whose profits are so extreme, who do direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumers, who pay for more lobbyists than any other industry, all the while we settle for ~30th in the industrialized nations in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy.

Btw, have any of the anti-reformists ever lived abroad and/or received medical care from these providers and systems you judge to be so inferior? I have. I find it shameful that we believe healthcare should be motivated by profit and that many consider it just and correct to deny health coverage to anyone here including non-citizens.

In fact, I would be happy to have the medical care system that treated to me over 20 years ago in the former East Germany instead of what I have here today in the US. That'll probably brand me as a crazy ultra-leftist fanatic by the anti-reformists. Call me what you like. I can speak from personal experience.

TL,

I appreciate that you are addressing issues, not just attacking the messengers as many here seem to do. I admit that I have no statistics at hand to prove that what you show is wrong, however.......

I have read many a time (as your site shows) that the cost of litigation is a part of a percent of overall healthcare costs. I question if that is the total of only the actual court awards in such cases. If it is, then what about the cost of the out of court settlements? I am guessing (no time to research it right now) that the out of court settlements are far greater than the court awards.

Next, and by far the most important is the chilling effect of the awards let alone just the legal actions taken against medical professionals. I am informed that this is the main reason that most doctors practice preventive medicine, ordering many times the number and types of tests needed, just to cover their butts. My guess here is that this is again larger by a factor of many over the sum of the costs of the settlements and court awards.

I know that I have never been sued but I carry a high value personal liability policy as a defensive measure. I also do many things that I am advised by attorneys to do. Many such actions are expensive and seem just plain silly but because of fear of legal action against me I do them. Cosst me a lot...my customers, too.

I still think tort reform would go a long way towards reducing the cost of medicine. BTW, you never hear anyone arguing for a "European Style Healthcare System" talking about the cost of malpractice insurance or the defensive medicine practices. I assume they are a very minor cost factor.

tl (in sw) wrote:

"insurance companies whose profits are so extreme"

And just how extreme is that?

Keep in mind that health insurance companies are also life insurance companies. And life insurance (and associated products) have always been VERY profitable.

Health insurance is also profitable but for a different reason than you might expect: most health insurors do very little 'insuring'.

Most mid-size and large employers are 'self insured'.

What does that mean?

The employer collects the premium, the employer pays the claim. If claims are less than premiums collected, the employer pockets the difference.

Your employer is shouldering the risk and doing the 'insuring'. And probably making a profit.

The 'insurance company' actually only provides administrative services and a line of reinsurance in case the claims go overboard in any given year.

So, I would like to see some real documentation how health insurance companies are making ridiculous profits SPECIFICALLY from insuring health. Because I doubt that they are.

If you can provide documentation of how much of their profit is from life insurance and associated lines, how much is from administrative services to self insured plans and how much is actually from the selling of health insurance policies, then we'll have something to talk about.

So next time you hear someone talk about 'the obscene profits that health insurance companies make', ask them how much of that is actually from insuring health.

Likely they won't know, and won't even understand the question.

Paul G wrote:

"Joe denies the need for a single payer plan by claiming that 87.3% of the public has insurance ... by including the ones who have PUBLICLY PROVIDED MEDICARE!!"

uh Paul.....Medicare IS insurance, the nations largest insurance plan.

Are you unaware of that?

The reason I included them as 'insured' is because they are.

Yeah the game is over for you pal.

Leo Schuman wrote:

"Any democratic government is people choosing to act together for their common good.....for the really important things every single person needs. Like health care."

How come we don't have a government 'Food Care' program to make sure everyone has 3 squares a day?

How come we don't have a government 'Water Care' program to insure no one ever has the water cut off?

How come we don't have a government 'Clothes Care' program to make sure no one is lacking threads?

How come we don't have a government 'Job Care' program to guarantee the absolute right of everyone to be gainfully employed?

Leo Schuman wrote:

"As President Obama has pointed out, a public option will correct the lack of real competition in the insurance industry."

Anyone who believes that a government subsidized option is 'competition' in any meaningful sense is either hopelessly naive or unbelievably dishonest.

If the government came to your town and set up a business doing what your employer does, and charged half the price, you likely wouldn't welcome it as 'real competition'.

Your snow job isn't working here, Leo.

paul g. writes; "Ok Blue Collar libertarian, I will take you on your word. Did you actually read the column you cite? Because if you truly support the German model, I am with you."

No I do not suppport the German model. I was replying to your previous post.

I do support reform, just not the versions that are be promoted.

I think we need more midwives so that mothers have a choice, which they do not have much of in many states now because of laws that have resticted midwives, or in some cases outlawed midwives.

I think we need to repeal the McCarran- Ferguson Act.

Repeal laws requiring certificates of need where they now exist.

Repeal occupational licensing laws and use a certification process instead.

Abolish the FDA and along with it repeal any and all laws requiring drug and medical device licensing.

Get rid of the state medical licensing boards as we should have done years ago.

Pass some adequate liabilty laws to protect consumers from fraud, theft and any other issue.

Ummm Joe 87% coverage including people on medicare means medicare contributes to the 87% figure

A more honest figure would be to show what % of the non-medicare crowd is covered.

Or would that figure be lower and undercut your argument that the private market is doing fine covering people?

BlueOregon is a place for conservative and even more conservative Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip.

Carla said: Odd. Because the CBO has actually said that a strong public option could net in the $150 billion ballpark in cost savings in the next 10 years

Actually, that's not what the CBO has said... that's what The New Republic claims a couple of Capitol Hill sources claim the CBO said. Your source Carla. Additionally, The New Republic piece also states:

The sources cautioned that these were only the preliminary estimates, based on previous discussions--that CBO had not yet issued final scoring on language in the actual bill. But the sources felt the final estimate would likely be close.

A good thing too. You see, the 1 - 1.5 trillion figure came directly from the CBO's July 14th estimate. It was modified on July 17th to take a few more factors into account and predicted a comparatively moderate 239 billion over the next 10 years (which could be lowered to 65 billion considering other cost measures). But even this comparatively favorable estimate warns:

"It is important to note that the figures presented here do not represent a complete cost estimate for the coverage provisions of the legislation. They reflect specifications provided by the committee staff rather than detailed analysis of the legislative language. They do not include certain costs that the government would incur to administer the proposed changes and the impact of the bill’s provisions on other federal programs. Nevertheless, the estimates reflect the major net budgetary effects of H.R. 3200.

I'm mostly a lurker that follows some of the arguments, and since Carla's source was dated July 7th anticipating a CBO report... and two perfectly good published reports by the agency in question have been released... well why rely on what a "news agency" says a source said about a government agency?

How does Jeff put it? Ah yes, "just sayin'"

Mike wrote:

"Ummm Joe 87% coverage including people on medicare means medicare contributes to the 87% figure"

That's right. That's what I said. People on Medicare can't be counted as 'uninsured' as Paul G seemed to want to do.

Mike wrote:

"A more honest figure would be to show what % of the non-medicare crowd is covered."

Medicare recipients are insured. You cannot count them as 'uninsured' or pretend they don't count.

Mike wrote:

"Or would that figure be lower and undercut your argument that the private market is doing fine covering people?"

I'm always for improvement of the market.

But destroying the market by establishing a government monopoly will not improve it.

Leaving people with just one choice by running everyone else out of business using government subsidies will not improve health care service or save money.

Do you seriously want a health care industry with all of the efficiency of the DMV and all of the compassion of the IRS?

I've suggested ways to improve the market. If you've been following the conversations in various threads, you know what I've said.

Rolling back overregulation of health insurance is a great way to stimulate the market.

Increasing regulation and strangling competition using taxpayer dollars are not great ways to stimulate the market.

Blue collar libertarian wrote:

"I do support reform, just not the versions that are be promoted."

I would have to say that's my position too. There's things that can change, and should, for the better. But totalitarian socialized medicine is not a change for the better.

It's odd. When it comes to abortion, the liberals are all 'get your laws off my body', but when it comes to every other part of the anatomy they are all 'put your laws all over my body'.

I don't understand why those on the left are so intent on giving government control of every aspect of their health.

Have you figured it out?

It's odd. When it comes to abortion, the liberals are all 'get your laws off my body', but when it comes to every other part of the anatomy they are all 'put your laws all over my body'.

Joe's comment (and many others') though probably meant to stir up the hornets nest more than to further the conversation probably is based on the belief that publicly funded insurance would eliminate private insurance. That is why so many anti-reform minded folks don't believe the administration when the latter says "if you like your insurance, you can keep it". Joe says:

If the government came to your town and set up a business doing what your employer does, and charged half the price, you likely wouldn't welcome it as 'real competition'.

Of course a company wouldn't welcome the competition, just as a company wouldn't "welcome" competition from other companies. I don't see the point.

The thing is, even in countries with national health insurance, there still is private insurance available. People buy it to cover the stuff the national plan doesn't cover (e.g. cosmetic surgery, etc.): http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consinfohealth/healthins1.php#dirproviders

tl (in sw) wrote:

"meant to stir up the hornets nest more than to further the conversation "

No, I'd really like an explanation.

Why do liberals want to place government in between an individual and their doctor for every single medical decision and transaction?

Why do liberals want to place government in between an individual and their doctor for every single medical decision and transaction?

I'd rather that than a person/actuary/company whose profits are driven by NOT providing me with care. By the way, both liberals AND conservatives prefer this choice in Canada. A poll by the CBC earned Tommy Douglas, the pioneer of Canada's universal health insurance title of “The Greatest Canadian” posthumously. Do you suggest the Canadians do not understand how bad they have it compared to us in the US?

Canadians spend 10% of the gross domestic product for healthcare to cover everybody, whereas the US spends 16% and still leaves millions uninsured and many more underinsured. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/18/actor_kiefer_sutherlands_grandfather_tommy_douglas

One of many excellent quotes from interview linked above between Amy Goodman and Dr. Michael Rachlis, physician and health policy analyst, also adjunct professor in health policy studies at the University of Toronto. His latest book, Prescription for Excellence: How Innovation is Saving Canada’s Health Care System.:

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Michael Rachlis, finally, the answer to the question that is continually posed by those who oppose any kind of public plan, and that is, having a bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient. Your response to that?

DR. MICHAEL RACHLIS: That there certainly isn’t the kind of formal rationing that people have been describing in your country. Or we don’t have death panels in this country, for example. That the decision about treatment is made actually just between the doctor and the patient. The insurance plan is virtually never involved. And ironically, in your country, it’s the private insurers that often stand between patients and physicians.

You have to finance healthcare some way. And then there have to be some decisions made about what’s covered and how you’re going to organize those services. In our country, we made the choice to have it as a public insurance plan and to make those decisions democratically. And somewhat ironically, in your country, those decisions, they’re left to somebody, but in this case they’re left to private insurers who appear to be a whole lot less accountable than our elected politicians are in this country.

test

tl (in sw) wrote:

"a company wouldn't "welcome" competition from other companies. I don't see the point."

The point is that the government setting up shop in your industry is not the same as an individual or group risking their own money to compete with you.

The government doesn't risk anything while engaging you in competition because they can print as much money as they need.

Are you seriously going to tell me that Coca Cola wouldn't object to the government going in the soft drink business?

Would JC Penney object to the government opening a string of department stores?

What part of 'limited government' don't you get?

Where in your copy of the Constitution does it give the feds the authority to drive legal private enterprises out of business by setting up taxpayer funded competition?

tl (in sw) wrote:

"I'd rather that than a person/actuary/company whose profits are driven by NOT providing me with care."

hmmm, interesting quote here:

"Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.” “Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” Brodie said."

The President has done a terrible job of selling his ideas. It is painful to hear him on the defensive in town hall meetings. I long to hear him give an aggressive "follow the money" speech about WHY health care is increasingly unaffordable (e.g. 428% increase in PROFITS since 2002), and who wants it to continue that way. He seems more wedded to bipartisanship than to health care for Americans. Starting negotiations by asking for half-a-loaf is how you end up with crumbs.

And the term "public option" is lame and not self-explanatory. Medicare is popular and people understand how it works. Use the term Medicare, as in "Open Medicare" or "Open-enrollment Medicare." (The "Medicare For All" phrase sounds compulsory, which a lot of people would resist.)

In fact, many seniors have been misled that health insurance reform is an attack on Medicare, leading to the bizarre stance of conservative Republicans casting themselves as defenders of Medicare, which they would privatize in a New York minute if they thought they could.

The GOP and conservatives have been historically so much better at branding than the Democrats ("death taxes", "pro-life", "tax & spend liberals", etc.). I invite people to start calling our currernt health care/private insurance status quo system "pay or die healthcare".

Maybe 'government is the solution' kool-aid drinkers will listen to both the current and the incoming presidents of the CMA.

The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association Dr. Anne Doig says We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize....

Dr. Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care, and she adds that physicians from across the country – who will gather in Saskatoon today for their annual meeting – recognize that changes must be made....

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by"

nah, they probably won't listen. These top Canadian docs are obviously shills paid off by American insurance companies and big American pharmaceutical companies.

The article I posted yesterday from Vancouver where they will be rationing surgery was ignored by the liberals here at BO.

<h2>No reason to think that anyone will listen to actual doctors when their Democrat politicians say they have all the answers.</h2>