To those who support national healthcare,explain your plan. (drugs, independent, companies)

[skytrekker]

European tax rates are about 12% higher then those in the USA-
Frankly what I am paying for health care now- which is a small mortgage; I would gladly pay 12% higher on income for health care that would be affordable.

I know many self employed good people who work hard that have no health care here in Connecticut- the reason they say they lack coverage 'not affordable'.

[bily4]

Why can't we take some of the positive approaches made in Netherlands, Germany, England as mentioned in my previous post to try to devise a workable solution?

As mentioned before you are going to pay for increasing health care in some fashion or another no matter what -through greatly increased premiums, deductibles, copayment percentages most likely, year to year. You don't "gain any savings" by just trying to keep the status quo.

How about this plan as a proposal.

A true guarantee of affordable health care
Health Care for America embodies this strategy.2 It would extend insurance to all non-elderly Americans through a new Medicare-like program and workplace health insurance, while creating an effective framework for controlling medical costs and improving health outcomes to guarantee affordable, quality care to all. It is at once comprehensive, realistic, consistent with American values and beliefs, and grounded in the best elements of the present system. It combines employer and personal responsibility with a strong public commitment to ensuring that American workers and their families and American employers can afford coverage. It promises better care, lower costs, more choice, healthier citizens, and immensely stronger guarantees for workers and their families. And it promises real savings for employers and state governments—without un-raveling existing sources of health security, without forcing workers to obtain coverage on their own, and without pressuring patients into Health Savings Accounts or tightly managed health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

What Health Care for America would do is simple: every legal resident of the United States who lacks access to Medicare or good workplace coverage would be able to buy into the "Health Care for America Plan," a new public insurance pool modeled after Medicare. This new program would team up with Medicare to bargain for lower prices and upgrade the quality of care so that every enrollee would have access to either an affordable Medicare-like plan with free choice of providers or to a selection of comprehensive private plans.

At the same time, employers would be asked to either provide coverage as good as this new plan or, failing that, make a relatively modest payroll-based contribution to the Health Care for America Plan to help finance coverage for their workers. At a stroke, then, no one with a direct or family tie to the workforce would remain uninsured. The self-employed could buy into the plan by paying the same payroll-based contribution; those without workplace ties would be able to buy into Health Care for America by paying an income-related premium. The states would be given powerful incentives to enroll any remaining uninsured.

If one word captures the essence of Health Care for America, it is "guaranteed." Health Care for America would guarantee coverage; it would guarantee a generous package of benefits; it would guarantee greater choice; and it would guarantee real savings and improved quality. The lack of such guarantees is at the heart of health insecurity in the United States today. To fulfill these guarantees, Health Care for America would create a new public–private partnership with powerful built-in incentives to control costs while improving quality. The stakeholders in our crumbling system would forge a new and stronger social contract for the 21st century.

How Health Care for America would provide affordable coverage to all
Health Care for America has just three central elements:

the new Health Care for America Plan, which would be open to any legal U.S. resident without good workplace coverage;3

a requirement that employers (and the self-employed) either purchase coverage comparable to Health Care for America for all their workers or pay a relatively modest payroll contribution (6% of payroll) to fund Health Care for America coverage for all their employees;

a requirement that Americans who remain without insurance take responsibility for their and their families' health by purchasing private coverage or buying into the Health Care for America Plan.4

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp180/bp180.pdf

[oz in SC]

6% of our wages will pay for everyone?
Has this been worked out to be an accurate estimate?

What do the health costs in most european nations run?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Whoever is paying the bill is providing the business,you as a customer aren't paying the bill,you are paying a much smaller amount on the off chance you fall ill.

You can opt out of going through the insurance company and simply pay the hospital but you shouldn't expect to get as good a price.

I think you're way off base.

The car wreck victim briught to hospital in need of orthopedic surgery, did the insurance company send someone out to crash his car? If not HOW are they providing the business?

The geriatric patient who fell down some stairs and now requires neurosurgery, did the insurance company have someone push her down the stairs? If not HOW are they providing the business?

There's a difference between providing business and paying the bill, I think you're missing it.

Originally Posted by oz in SC

You as an individual are not providing the business,you are simply a recipient of the service,it really has little to do with you as you chose to have the insurance company deal with the actual costs.

See above, I think you're wrong.

Originally Posted by oz in SC

I would imagine Franklin wouldn't really think too highly of the government being involved in any way with your health,good or bad.

Why?

Originally Posted by oz in SC

As more and more Americans reach retirement age,how do you expect medicaid and medicare to pay for their care?

Once again I think you're looking at the issue from the wrong end. The question is should we?, not can we?

I think we should and I believe we can find a way.

[bily4]

Well, see below cost justification from article. Apparently some effort was put together to devise this proposal.


Health Care for America would require new federal spending. But because the majority of workers who now have employment-
based coverage would retain private workplace insurance when the new Health Care for America Plan was in
place, federal spending would be much lower than it would be under a universal Medicare plan. Furthermore, most of
the necessary financing would come from those benefiting directly from the new Health Care for America Plan—namely,
from employers that make the payroll-based contribution for guaranteed health insurance for their workers and from
higher-income individuals who pay income-related premiums when enrolling in the Health Care for America Plan.
A good deal of the additional financing would come from the reduction of federal spending for S-CHIP and Medicaid,
and from the redirection of current state spending on these programs. (Despite requiring that the states continue
to contribute to the cost of public health insurance, this proposal would still provide substantial savings to the states.) In
addition, the movement of workers from tax-favored private coverage into Health Care for America would reduce federal
tax subsidies for employment-based insurance. And payroll and income tax receipts would rise due to the substitution
of wages for health benefits among firms that pay less for insurance than they would have without reform.
The remaining federal costs could be financed by various combinations of liquor and tobacco taxes and other dedicated
levies and general revenues. Past estimates suggest that this approach has a relatively modest net federal cost compared
with other comprehensive proposals, many of which would cover fewer Americans.10 Moreover, Health Care for America
requires much less new tax financing (even including the payroll-based contribution) than a single-payer proposal.
The main reason why Health Care for America is comparatively inexpensive is that higher-wage and larger employers
would continue to offer qualified coverage privately. For large employers with higher payrolls, private employment-based
coverage would remain a good deal—especially since this proposal would not eliminate the tax-favored status of private
coverage. For employers not enjoying the administrative economies of large-group purchase or with lower payrolls, the
Health Care for America Plan would be the better option. Thus, most of the new federal spending would be targeted on
those firms and workers least capable of providing or obtaining insurance today.

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp180/bp180.pdf

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by burdell

I think you're way off base.

The car wreck victim briught to hospital in need of orthopedic surgery, did the insurance company send someone out to crash his car? If not HOW are they providing the business?

The geriatric patient who fell down some stairs and now requires neurosurgery, did the insurance company have someone push her down the stairs? If not HOW are they providing the business?

There's a difference between providing business and paying the bill, I think you're missing it.


Once again I think you're looking at the issue from the wrong end. The question is should we?, not can we?

I think we should and I believe we can find a way.

I don't think I'm off base.You as a client of the insurance co. paid them to take care of your health needs....

I believe everyone should have three cars and two homes...oh to hell with it lets make it three homes.

What will probably happen is what can be seen in other nations,a rationing of service.

Through either open denial of service(starting to be seen) or through simply limiting availability of treatment.

The results are the same,costs go down as people simply.....die.

Something to remember as well,once a NHS is in place the ability to sue will go out the window.

[oz in SC]

Thanks Bily4 for posting.

So what in actual figures will be the cost to each person?

Also why would "higher-wage and larger employers continue to offer qualified coverage privately"??
I think we will see all these benefits start to vanish before long...but that is only my opinion.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

I don't think I'm off base.You as a client of the insurance co. paid them to take care of your health needs....

.

And the uninsured? How is their going for treatment different than the insured's? Obviously the insurance company isn't supplying the business because the uninsured don't have one. I'm not buying that two people needing identical treatment, one insured, one not are medically different and the hospital's business is medicine.

Or to put it in other terms: If MaryLou runs up a $500 monthly texting bill that daddy pays, who supplied the business to the phone company?

I say MaryLou, it wasn't (the now irate) daddy doing the texting.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by burdell

I'm not buying that two people needing identical treatment, one insured, one not are medically different and the hospital's business is medicine.

Or to put it in other terms: If MaryLou runs up a $500 monthly texting bill that daddy pays, who supplied the business to the phone company?

I say MaryLou, it wasn't (the now irate) daddy doing the texting.

A Hospital's business is making money through providing medical treatment.

Okay my example...
You decide to remodel a bathroom in your house and you are going to be the General Contractor.
Your neighbor Bob is a builder and he had told you in conversation he pays 75% of the price listed.

Off you go to 'Bathtubs are Us' to buy a bath tub.
You are charged 100% of the price.

Why is this you wonder.

Well,you are remodeling ONE bathroom,Bob is building thirty homes a year.
In the end the 'Bathtubs are Us' is making more from Bob even if the individual price is 25% less.
Is this wrong in your eyes?
If so why?
If not then why doesn't the same apply to healthcare?

My wife's work does this(ceramic art tile and granite business) with people all the time.Builders get better rates than a regular customer and bigger builders get even better rates.

It happens with everything,go buy fuel in bulk,you are given a better than gas pump price,especially if you buy regularly.

In your example MaryLou used the service but ultimately it was paid for by Daddy.Daddy is on the hook for paying.

[bily4]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Thanks Bily4 for posting.

So what in actual figures will be the cost to each person?

Also why would "higher-wage and larger employers continue to offer qualified coverage privately"??
I think we will see all these benefits start to vanish before long...but that is only my opinion.

You are welcome?

What are the actual costs to each person today?

You agree that health care benefits are getting more and more scarce each year as businesses can't or won't participate any more due to rapidly escalating costs. This increases the number of uninsured. This in turn puts more of a burden on the remaining insured as the costs are passed on to them. So we agree, as do most health care experts studying the topic, that the current model is not viable.

I think in this extremis situation we might have to just take some risks in making adjustments to the model.

And besides just coming back again with "what adjustments do you propose, what effect will have on me personally, what guarantees can you give me"...can you offer up anything other than the relativley insignificant issue of tort reform.

Sometimes there are no guarantees...and you just have to make a switch to fix something that is beyond repair. And work things out as you go.