Posted on 02/06/2008 6:08:34 AM PST by peggybac
Stern words on health care emanated from Washington last week.
The bottom line: We’ve got to make hard choices on how much we need and how we intend to pay for it, as individuals and as a country. If we don’t, we could fall into economic catastrophe.
“Our long-term fiscal challenge is primarily a health-care challenge,” U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker said in testimony before the SenateBudget Committee. “If there is one thing that could bankrupt America, it’s runaway health-care costs. We must not allow that to happen.”
Walker noted that U.S. health-care spending grew from 8.4 percent of gross domestic product in 1976 to 16 percent in 2006. Health-care spending is projected to gobble up nearly 20 percent of the GDP pie in 2016. This rate of growth makes it hard for employers to provide health coverage for their workers and undercuts America’s competitiveness in the global marketplace.
What’s driving this? One factor is the growth of medical technology, Walker said.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Oops, the date should be 2/4/08.
I saw him speak in DC late last year. My only question is what is a man this rational doing in DC?
His apponitment only comes up for renewal every 15 years.
•Provide universal access to basic and essential health care.
•Impose limits on federal spending for health care.
•Implement national, evidence-based medical practice standards to improve quality, control costs and reduce litigation.
•Make Americans assume more personal responsibility for their health.
Schizophrenia.
And as the baby boom generation goes geriatric it's going to get worse. Any wonder the beltway bureaucracy is salivating at the prospect of getting control of that kind of money and the power that goes with it?
One thing those older folks that support nationalized health care should be aware of:
Those countries that have it already are limiting or withholding care for those over 65 because of scarcity of resources.
Those countries that have it already are limiting or withholding care for those over 65 because of scarcity of resources.
Do you think their federal government is going to tell them that before they convince them to turn hand control of it over to them?
The cost of health care in this country is outrageous. we are given a choice between socialized medicine and Republican do nothingism. What we need is find another way. 40% of the cost of health insurance is commissions and marketing. If we had a national health Insurance coop we could save money. What you would do is select from one of several policies. You would then pay a small fee for being underwritten and assigned to a risk pool. Then the companies would bid on the policy with the lowest bidder winning. The coop could also force Insurance companies to standardize forms (another major savings.) They would be honest and live up to their responsibilities or be removed from the bidding. Companies would be successful by having efficient bureaucracies so they can get the lowest bids. The government does set it up but ownership is transfered to the policy holders within a few years. Doesn’t’t that sound better than the status quo or socialized medicine?
Who determines what is "basic" and "essential"? If a person needs a heart transplan, is that "essential"? Is abortion "basic"?
•Impose limits on federal spending for health care.
Nobody has ever been able to limit the federal appetite for spending. Does anyone remember the Gramm-Rudman Budget Act of 1985? I am still waiting for the those promised spending cuts.
•Implement national, evidence-based medical practice standards to improve quality, control costs and reduce litigation.
I am not sure what "evidence-based" standards are all about.
•Make Americans assume more personal responsibility for their health.
The first word "make" really makes me feel uncomfortable because I believe many of my freedoms will be outlawed.
Are they going to pass a law to force me to go to the gym? Will junk food become illegal? If the doctors measure too much body fat on me or my kids, would I be charged with a crime? What happens if I shun "organic foods" or make fun of vegitarians? Would that stupid "food pyramid" that describes what we should be eating change from "recommended" to "required"?
The problem is how health care is delivered - not how it's "paid for". We've got an antiquated medical health care delivery system that hasn't changed in a hundred years.
And making it even worse is that healthcare is something that should never, ever have appeared in the federal budget. See the 10th Amendment sometime... and recall that "the General Welfare" meant nothing resembling "payments to the poor" in the 18th Century.
Hillary promises everything and according to her it’ll be free.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
(Things our government can not or should not touch)
Our healthcare costs what it does because of the “expectations” we place on it. Any patient admitted to a emergency room with symptoms of a heart attack will get the whole works. A bump on the head immediately gets an MRI. We demand RNs, we demand the newest technology, we demand the best service, and we demand choices; that cost money.
With the aging of America, so come higher healthcare costs. Not only will Social Security see a strain, but our healthcare costs will explode. The treatment of age related illnesses will increase, that’s a simple fact.
(Things our government CAN fix or affect)
(Large impact) A large cost that our hospitals face and roll over to others inevitably is those associated with illegal aliens. Ironically, this single aspect accounts for more than 1/3 of those so called “uninsured,” and our government shuns from dealing with this issue. As our political parties play their mating game with various voting blocks and promise the stars, they seem to be reluctant to mention that much of our so called “uninsured” problem and even a large part of our healthcare costs are from these people they simply would rather see as undocumented workers or whatever other euphemism they can come up with that day. Has anyone noticed that this is never mentioned by the Presidential contenders? I haven’t heard Hillary mention the minor detail that over 1/3 of our uninsured are illegals? Even McCain is silent. I wonder why?/sarc If they don’t want to really deal with the issues, I suggest these frauds chasing votes keep their mouth shut and talk about some soft topic like global warming.
(Moderate impact) The pharmaceutical industry is highly protected. From plastic surgery to medications for cancer, it is highly restrictive to import drugs and this is NOT for public safety’s sake. Like many of these façade arguments, safety is used to restrict the import of cheaper drugs that cut into profit margins. Opening up the market to pharmaceuticals produced outside the US would dramatically reduce the costs for the consumer and increase his choices, but that’s another point our politicians seem to not want to address.
(Minor impact) SOX, celebrated as some great achievement politically placed an enormous burden on our healthcare system in that the administrative side had to significantly increase their overhead to comply. From records keeping to IT networks, the implications of SOX are real from a financial perspective. If the government plans to really solve anything and not just self ingratiate themselves while fueling the fire, they should reconsider aspects of SOX and address them in order to take undue stress off the healthcare sector.
The scary thing about our debate in healthcare is that those solutions floated are no solutions at all. They are political answers that get people elected but talk beside the real pressing issues that have an impact. -IMHO
We spend more on health care because we receive more health care. You are proposing price controls and socialized medicine. Other countries use price controls to control costs. Price controls will control costs at the expense of shortages. Health care is rationed by a central administration much to the detriment of those most in need of care.
We need less government intrusion in health care, not more. HSAs are an excellent vehicle to reduce the role of insurance and increase the role of individual choice. Insurance companies are rational. They can choose to spend premium dollars on any mix of expenses deemed necessary. They do not need you or any of the rats to tell them how to spend premium dollars.
Well, that’s what we’re here for.
And Rush,
and Hannity,
and Levin, etc
Our pharmaceutical industry is not protected. You are confusing the issue of foreign government treatment of pharmaceutical companies with our treatment. Most other countries impose price controls on pharmaceuticals. We do not impose price controls although individual states are attempting to impose price controls. The law restricting importation prevents imposition of foreign government price controls.
The issue of drug importation from Canada is just a populist idea. If laws are changed to allow unrestricted importation of drugs, Canada will stop the practice. The US demand will cause drug shortages in Canada. If some lawmaker tries to force drug companies to meet the US demand at Canadian prices, we will have long term supply problems with reduced development of new drugs and shortages of highly sought drugs.
Bottom line: importation of price controlled drugs will either not have any impact when the practice is stopped by Canada or importation will lead to similar price controls here with typical market effects from imposing price controls.
I’m concerned that your plan removes my choice of insurer from the mix. What happens if the lowest bidder also has lousy service? I don’t have the option to leave. How does the co-op measure/enforce these customer service standards?
Simpler solution - ban the sale of insurance policies with low deductibles (say $2500). This still allows protection from catastrophes, but forces individual consumers to take responsibility for their day-to-day health care costs. When is the last time you negotiated for health care, or even asked the price before you accepted the service? Low deductibles basically take the consumer out of the process and allow costs to skyrocket, because the consumer doesn’t have any interest in containing the costs.
I know this removes some of the free market aspect of the solution, but we are so far from a free market in health care (my insurance rates are high because illegals get free ER care, for example) that a free market solution isn’t possible.
Not to mention the fact that the “cheap” drugs from Canada and other countries stems from their reverse engineering of patented drugs. Our pharmaceutical companies pay for the research and development, testing and approval, and then get shafted because their patents for the drugs cannot be enforced. As one company said - “The first pill costs $50,000,000 - the second pill costs $0.50.”
Here's a look at a current "standard" in Canada. Look out.
I am not sure what "evidence-based" standards are all about.
Translation: you can only get an MRI if you prove that you really, really need one. No more diagnostic testing "just in case".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.