RSS Feed MenuDemocrats are proposing to expand Medicare rather than create a brand-new public option from scratch. Given that Medicare is already over-committed by more than $40 trillion, you might think this plan … ambitious. Perhaps the Democrats are following one of Donald Rumsfeld’s famous “rules“:
If you don’t know how to solve a problem – make it bigger!
sinz54 // Dec 14, 2009 at 10:58 am
One of Obama’s original rationales for health care reform was the exploding cost of entitlements.
So what do the Dems propose now? Expand one of those exploding entitlements!
The main problem with ALL the liberals’ single-payer schemes is that they can actually call them “Medicare For All”–while ignoring the fact that the current “Medicare For Seniors” program is financially insolvent over the long run. You don’t choose an insolvent program as your role model!
LFC // Dec 14, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I don’t understand. The whole point is to make Medicare available for anybody 55 and over if they pay for it. How is it an “entitlement” and why is it expansion of an “exploding entitlement”? The whole point is that the uninsured would have to cover their own premiums.
Another major provisions is to give aid to people to gain universal healthcare in this country, and that would be more money, but that would be the same whether they went to private companies or to Medicare. In fact, going with Medicare is more cost efficient (by 14% if Medicare Advantage is an accurate indicator). But if you’re against aid to gain universal healthcare, then you’re pretty much against universal healthcare.
COProgressive // Dec 14, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The whole purpose of healthcare reform is to bend the cost curve down and provide access for all Americans.
The current “Status Quo” healthcare system is unsustainable with cost raising faster than wages. It is becoming an ever increasing burden on American businesses to be able to compete in the world’s marketplace against businesses from nations that don’t burden their businesses with an employer-based healthcare system.
We have a healthcare system which supports two industries Profit Goals. The “For-Profit” healthcare providers set yearly corporate Profit goals and set patient prices to cover expenses and provide a profit. That inflated patient bill is then sent to the “For-Profit” S&I Insurance company which in turn has it’s own overhead and corporate Profit Goals to meet and spreads that cost across that patient’s pool of policyholders (Groups in insurance talk).
Would it not be better to have a Universal Single Payer Healthcare system where we can remove the middleman, the money changer, and have OUR government pay directly the healthcare provider?
There’s the old phrase “I can get for you wholesale”. Well, if we look at Single Payer as getting it wholesale, we can see that we can get a deal for America and all Americans.
We need to change our way of thinking from having to buy yearly insurance policies against sickness and injury that end each December 31st with money spent and gone forever to thinking about healthcare as a Trust Fund that you that you invest in and is there for you or you family should you need it.
Chekote // Dec 14, 2009 at 2:40 pm
The whole point is that the uninsured would have to cover their own premiums.
Boy, you are naive. What do you think is going to happen when they can’t pay for it?
Chekote // Dec 14, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Would it not be better to have a Universal Single Payer Healthcare system where we can remove the middleman, the money changer, and have OUR government pay directly the healthcare provider?
And replace them with politicians? Those fine individuals, profiles in courage that have bankrupted our country so that they could keep their jobs? No thanks. I will take a chance on the free market.
Chekote // Dec 14, 2009 at 2:47 pm
There’s the old phrase “I can get for you wholesale”. Well, if we look at Single Payer as getting it wholesale, we can see that we can get a deal for America and all Americans.
That true in the free market. But when you have politicians involved, the prize will go to the people whowill give the most campaign contributions. Haven’t you learned anything from history? Look what is happening with Obama. He cut a special deal with Big Pharma. Or Reid whose plan to lower the age for Medicare to 55 combined with individual mandates means huge windfall profits for insurance companies who will dump the older sicker patients into Medicare and pick a bunch of young, healthy customers. This from Obama and the Dems who promised “change”. WAKE UP!
Chekote // Dec 14, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Sinz
What do you think of Judd Gregg for POTUS in 2012? I have been watching him since the beginning of the year. Very impressive.
LFC // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Chekote said… Boy, you are naive. What do you think is going to happen when they can’t pay for it?
I addressed that as a separate issue, because it is a separate issue. I accept that achieving universal coverage will cost money. If you’re against aid to people who can’t pay for insurance, then realistically you’re against universal healthcare.
The issue my comment was directed at was that it would expand the Medicare entitlement. Aid to gain universal healthcare is the entitlement. It doesn’t really matter whether the money goes to Medicare or to private companies. In fact, if we’re going to have universal insurance, we should ensure we go the cheapest route. Today, that’s Medicare as abundantly illustrated by the extras costs we’re burdened with by private health insurers under Medicare Advantage program.
LFC // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Yeah, Judd Gregg is real impressive. After doing nothing about deficits when the GOP was in power, now he wants to create a commission to study the problem. And passage of any recommendation (if they ever actually achieve that) would require super-majorities in both houses. Why not just a majority?
Be sure to look at the picture, specifically the board behind him. Somebody who sits in front of a sign that says a goal is to cut the deficit 1/2 by 2012 and 2/3 by 2014, while it simultaneously saying a goals is to have $764 Billion in tax cuts, is not a serious man. He’s George W. Bush all over again.
Somebody who sits in front of a sign saying they want a 3 year AMT fix (to hide the future fixes we know will be coming every year until AMT goes away) is not a serious man.
I’m not impressed.
Reason60 // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:18 pm
As much as I think the free market is efficient, not EVERYTHING benefits from the free market model.
Health care is such a thing.
The free market acheive efficiency by excluding those who can’t pay. Those who can’t afford toasters, do without.
It also relies on a relative balance of power between provider and consumer- if the car salesman asks if you want undercarriage protection, you can evaluate it, and decide if it is worth the cost. It is an arms-length relationship.
Healthcare doesn’t lend itself to either of these factors- there is no such market that acheives universal covereage, yet realistically, we can’t let anyone go without healthcare. The relationship between doctor and patient can never be a marketplace transaction- it is a fiduciary relationship, where we place total faith in our doctor. We accept whatever he recommends, regardless of cost.
Health insurance is a middleman for something that really doesn’t belong in the marketplace. We can come up with a million ever-more-complex solutions, but at some point we have to accept that we must give health care to those who cn’t pay for it.
There are solutions- single payer, or perhaps a dual rack public health care, with private system for those who can afford it, and so on.
But straining and contorting ourselves to pretend that the free market will achieve universal coverage and still allow the fiduciary relationship between doctor and patient is absurd.
This isn’t what markets do.
sinz54 // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:29 pm
COProgressive: Would it not be better to have a Universal Single Payer Healthcare system where we can remove the middleman, the money changer, and have OUR government pay directly the healthcare provider?
Hey troll,
I’ve asked you once before what you had against NON-PROFIT private health insurers like Kaiser-Permanente or Harvard-Pilgrim.
Are you going to answer my question?
LFC // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I’ve asked you once before what you had against NON-PROFIT private health insurers like Kaiser-Permanente or Harvard-Pilgrim.
First, I’m not taking a position either way on single payer, though I have to admit that my now 10 month long experience with UHC has soured me on private health insurance companies significantly.
As to non-profits, I don’t know about the two you named, but Blue Cross here in PA had amassed quite a surplus, many times over what they were required to keep in reserves. So basically they are charging more than they have to and sitting on bundles of cash.
Some years back, they attempted to become a for-profit company while keeping the assets amassed as a non-profit. It didn’t fly.
MI-GOPer // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Let’s not be snippy, sinz54. You start callin’ out the trolls to be accountable and you’ll just keep repeating yourself –they can’t be accountable; it’s not in their character.
David Frum, not to quibble… but you do know that the line you attribute to Don Rumsfeld really wasn’t Mr Rumsfeld’s –it was an Eisenhower quote. And he was wrong about that notion, as well.
COProgressive // Dec 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm
sinz54:
“Hey troll,
“I’ve asked you once before what you had against NON-PROFIT private health insurers like Kaiser-Permanente or Harvard-Pilgrim.”
(Laughter…….)
Troll? Whatever happened to the free flow of intelligent views and ideas? If you disagree with me and that make me a troll, then by the same token if I disagree with you, than you must be a troll too.
As to NON-PROFIT private health insurers, I have no problem with them, just like I have no problem with NON-PROFIT hospitals either. I can remember when there were NON-PROFIT, charity hospitals supported by those kind folks who wish to support those less fortunate than ourselves, you know, the St.Elsewhere’s of the world. But the struggling St. Elsewhere’s were bought up by companies like Bill Frist’s HCA and turned from a money pit into a “For-Profit”. So the days of NON-PROFIT hospitals has gone to be replaced by the new paradigm that give us the $20 asprin and the $8 box of tissues.
And this is better how?
COProgressive // Dec 14, 2009 at 4:29 pm
sinz54:
BTW, I did want to mention both Reason60 and LFC both had good points too re: profit in healthcare.
There is no “free market” in healthcare. You don’t stand on the corner with your cell phone checking prices on ambulance services while your son or daughter lies bleeding in the street.
We need to remove the “For-Profit” motive from healthcare. Make a good living, yes. Charge for excellent services, yes. Run healthcare with a corporate profit goal, not so much.
Chekote // Dec 14, 2009 at 8:25 pm
#9
Unfortunately, a commission is the only way out. If one party tries to make any cuts/reforms to entitlements, the other party will demonize them for it. We are at a stalemate. Gregg is just being realistic. Regular order has been proven to be ineffective. Time to do something different.
Chekote // Dec 14, 2009 at 8:28 pm
The profit motive is the reason the vast majority of medical innovation takes place in the US. Other countries benefit from it since thanks to our system, they don’t have to invest all the R&D money to develop new cures, procedures. Remove the profit motive, you will kill innovation.
sdspringy // Dec 14, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I have yet to completely understand why healthcare now considered a right. Everyone is entitled to healthcare whether they can afford it or not.
Why not food? I mean if you don’t have food what good is healthcare? So if we are entitled to a product which should not be subject to a profit motive why worry about healthcare when people are starving.
And really if you want someone to be productive, how can that happen when education is available only to the wealthy. Why isn’t access to colleges and universities a right, not limited to intelligence or ability to pay. How can you achieve economic independence and even be able to understand these complex issues concerning healthcare without education.
And since well colleges and universities don’t appear on every street corner we should provide a means of transportation free of charge. Because how can anyone have the means to afford transportation before they have become educated and economically independent.
Did I leave anything out, what about shoes, can’t have people going barefoot, for Pete’s Sake.
sinz54 // Dec 15, 2009 at 10:00 am
COProgressive: There is no “free market” in healthcare. You don’t stand on the corner with your cell phone checking prices on ambulance services while your son or daughter lies bleeding in the street.
I agree with you that human illness represents a market failure.
But your example is bad.
When your car breaks down in the middle of a blizzard out in the boondocks, you don’t stand on the corner with your cell phone checking prices on tow trucks and mechanics while you’re at serious risk of freezing to death either. You go with whoever can get there fast, regardless of price. Does that mean that there is no free market in auto repair either??? Any catastrophe may require you to trade off cost for speed, whether it’s a sudden heart attack or being stranded in the middle of a blizzard or a terrorist attack.
Catastrophes can be handled by a free market that prepares in advance for them. In the aforementioned automobile case, you could have chosen in advance from various market alternatives: OnStar, AAA, etc. In the case of health care, whichever hospital is closest will send their ambulance.
The real differences appear with continuing treatment. You would certainly agree that routine automobile maintenance is done well by the free market, yes?
But continuing care for chronic illnesses is still not done well by the free market. What’s the difference? The difference is the law of supply and demand.
The supply and demand curves intersect at a reasonable price point for autos, but not for human lives. If your old automobile (or your brand-new lemon) costs too much to repair, you can junk it and buy a different car. We don’t have that option with our bodies. The Lord gives each of us only one body to a customer. We are therefore forced to keep it healthy, as long as we can, no matter what it costs. As a result, in a free market, demand for health care services always outruns supply (no one wants to die just because their health care costs too much).