Topic: REMINDER: Universal Healthcare Forum Tonight
Author
Post
Public D F L I N T O I D
Tuesday, August 21
6:30 p.m.
Kiva Auditorium at University of Michigan-Flint
Political science expert Margaret Kahn, U.S. Rep. Dale E. Kildee, D-Flint, and Detroit Democrat U.S. Rep. John Conyers, who wrote HR 676, will be on the panel.
Please report on the highlights of this forum for those of us that wanted to but could not attend.
_________________ The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy, speech at Vanderbilt University, May 18, 1963
Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:13 pm
FlintConservative F L I N T O I D
I find it somewhat amusing, if not ludicrous, that HR 676 would, among other things, provide unlimited health care to anyone in the United States, whether here legally or not; make it illegal to buy your own insurance if you don't like the government plan; and make all health care providers convert to non-profit status...no for profit entity could provide medical services and receive payment under the plan. Oh...there is also no mention of the cost or how it will be paid for.
Maybe if we didn't tax people so much they could buy their own insurance.
If we didn't have the $500 billion to pay for the War and a few trillion dollars we owe to the federal reserve we wouldn't need more taxes and another government program to "help us out".
quote:FlintConservative schreef:
I find it somewhat amusing, if not ludicrous, that HR 676 would, among other things, provide unlimited health care to anyone in the United States, whether here legally or not; make it illegal to buy your own insurance if you don't like the government plan; and make all health care providers convert to non-profit status...no for profit entity could provide medical services and receive payment under the plan. Oh...there is also no mention of the cost or how it will be paid for.
Conservative, Adam, I don't see any need to engage in debate with those who have yet to research this issue in any substanial way. When you do, maybe we can have a heated discussion about it (or maybe about the sick irony of the Federal Reserve playing welfare office for your Wall Street dead-beats (think: welfare mothers).
In the meantime, here are some answers to the questions you don't bother trying to find answers to before rendering your party's cue card verdict (granted, this info is a couple of years old - so just figure that your healthcare profiteer buddies have doubled all numbers in the last three years, conservatively):
Financing for Single Payer National Healthcare
Financing HR 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act, (Medicare For All)
Medicare For All (H.R. 676) would reduce health spending in 2005 from $1,918 trillion to $1,861.3 trillion (a savings of over $56 billion) while covering all the uninsured. Ninety-five percent of families would pay less for health care than they do today. This is a 3% reduction in over-all health care spending: what a family pays, business, and government for health care.
Sources of Revenue (2005)
1. Government: $852.5 billion
2. Keep existing federal, state and local revenues that currently pay for Medicare (employer and employee payroll taxes of 1.45% each or $194 billion) and other federal and state programs.
4. Employers and Employees: $441.6 billion
5. Implement a modest payroll tax of 3.3% on all public and private employers and employees, while eliminating employer premiums for private health plans. This is in addition to the 1.45% payroll tax that people are already paying. So the total payroll tax is 4.75% on the employer, and 4.75% on the employee.
5. 5% Health tax on the richest 5% of Americans; 10% tax on richest 1%: $221.8 billion
6. Tax on stock and bond transactions: $144.6 billion
Anyone who buys or sells a stock will pay a transaction tax equal to one quarter of one percent of the purchase price. For example, a $100 stock purchase will be taxed a total of 50 cents.
7. Close corporate tax shelter loopholes: $105.2 billion
8. Repeal the Bush tax cut of 2001 and invest the Bush 'economic stimulus plan' of 2003 into health care: $206 billion
9. Household: $65.9 billion
Since all medically necessary services including prescription drugs will be covered, the only expenses left for individuals will be over-the-counter drugs such as aspirin, elective cosmetic surgery, etc. This represents an 80% reduction in current out-of-pocket expenses.
Existing non-patient revenues: $44.5 billion
Existing funds raised from philanthropic donations from individuals and foundations, and from hospital gift shops will continue to contribute a small percentage of the total budget.
Total budget: $1.861 trillion *This progressive funding package was developed in 2001 by Tony Mazzochi (Labor Party) and Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (Harvard), with assistance from Dean Baker (Center for Economic Research and Policy). For more info, contact Joel Segal, Rep. Conyers, 202 225-5126.
WHY WE NEED H.R.676
Corporate Medicine Profit Break Down
(*Data from IHSP, “The Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy,” the research arm of the California Nurses Association, December 9, 2006)
Why Does Your Health Care Cost So Much?
On March 2004, a national survey from the Common Wealth Fund found that 2 out of 5 adults have medical bill problems or accrued medical debt.
The 20 largest HMOs’ in the U.S. made $10.8 billion in profits in the most recent fiscal year, (2005). 12 top HMO executives pocketed $222.6 million in direct compensation in the most recent fiscal year. (2005).
The top seven U.S. health insurers earned a combined $10 billion dollars-nearly triple their profits of 5 years earlier. (Wall Street Journal, August 2006.)
In 2004, top executives of the 11 largest health insurers, made a combined $85 million per year in one year. (Weiss Reports)
In 2004, the world’s 13 largest drug companies recorded $62 billion in profits. The top 12 drug companies’ executives collected $192.7 million for the same period.
* Dr. William McGuire, CEO of United Health, the nation’s second leading health insurers, had $1.6 billion in exercisable options at the end of 2005. (CBN News, October 16, 2006)
* The aggregate profits for U.S. hospitals reached a record $26.3 billion in 2004, and profits have risen substantially the past few years even as the number of hospitals and hospital beds has been shrinking.
The nations’ 100 most expensive hospitals set their gross charges at an average of 680% (up from 673% in 2002-2003) of their costs.
The diagnostic imaging technology category has grown to nearly a $100 billion dollar a year business. (Strategy & Business News, 3/31/04, U.S. Health Care’s Technology Cost Crisis)
Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:06 pm
FlintConservative F L I N T O I D
Now that's funny. First, I don't have party cue cards. I'm independent. Conservative, yes, but independent. All of my points were made based on reading HR 676 and are FACTS. None of which, by the way, did you address.
Then you go on to quote propaganda from the California Nurses Association (a UNION). That would certainly be unbiased information. Their own website says they are "shifting the focus of the debate from cost containment to patient safety and quality of care." Of course cost DOES MATTER. To which I ask, again, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS????
Finally, I challenge you to show me anything the federal government does efficently and effectively. Medicare spending is spiraling out of control. Medicare expenditures have grown from approximately $85 billion in FY 1989 to almost $330 billion in FY 2006. That's an average of about 16% per year. (Also, that's 7.4% of total federal outlay in FY 1989 compared to 12.4% for FY 2006.)
I understand that in the utopian world of those who believe in socialism all should be treated equally and fairly and everything should be free. Unfortunately, that's not reality. Reality is that socialized health care leads to things like this: "French heat wave death toll set at 14,802."
"The new estimate comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly."
"Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei has ordered a separate special study this month to look into a possible link with vacation schedules after doctors strongly denied allegations their absence put the elderly in danger. The heat wave hit during the August vacation period, when doctors, hospital staff and many others take leave. The results of that study are expected in November. "
Sorry about calling you a Republican, um, Conservative. Whatever.
Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:
Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loopholes, repealing the Bush tax cut.
The loss of life resulting from the heat wave in France had less to do with their Healthcare system, which is consistently rated among the best in the world by the World Health Organization, and more to do with emergency response failures (is the current US Healthcare system to blame for the deaths and injuries that resulted from Hurricane Katrina?). Europe's traditional aversion to air-conditioning was also a major factor. As was the sheer number of elderly adults who's health, as a result of their superior healthcare, were still strong enough well into their ‘advanced-golden years’ to allow them to continue to live independent lives, not in convalescent homes. Honestly, it's a silly, desperate, and rather cold-blooded argument against universal healthcare.
And oh by the way, once again, this time with feeling, so that maybe, just maybe, it'll sink in: Government-provided services DO NOT constitute a socialist state. As Michael Moore rightly points out, public education, public libraries, fire departments, police departments, even national defense are provided to all Americans. Americans who I think resent being compared to or labeled communists simply because they take seriously the "LIFE" part of, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE . . ."
Family values, indeed.
But whether you think so or not (or say you need more objectively verifiable, quantifiable, statistically permissible, hard data to be swayed), the best cases for universal healthcare come from those whose ‘unalienable rights’ are, excuse the term, 'denied.'
If they believe in "LIFE", why do so many support abortion?
why? because there are competeing rights, and a balance is evaluated and a choice made.
Life does not equal good health.
Nor does "Life" mean the government meant to provide for everyone's heath. If it did we would have seen government sponsored health care from the beginning of the country. We did not.
Its a fanciful interpretation people are using to justify and rationalize government rationed health-care. And it will be rationed.
The government with all its entitlement programs over 70+ years hasn't dented poverty, illness, ignorance etc, what makes anyone think government controlled health care won't be rationed, that you will not be able to see the doctor you want when you want for what you want?
Do you really want some gum-popping, uncaring, bureaucrat deciding just what medical services they will allow you to access?
You need to see a psychiatrist, quickly before you lose the right too.
_________________ Biggie
Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:01 pm
FlintConservative F L I N T O I D
Be careful using that capital C on Creator...you'll offend many on the left.
I'm curious why you would know better than the French Parliament the cause of so many casualties in their country.
Anyway, I really am looking for independent data regarding government health plans. I say again...I just can't find anything the government is good at. Other than spending more than they have.
"France's state-subsidized medical system is considered liberal because doctors and dentists establish private practices, and patients, who are free to choose their own providers, are reimbursed by the state for up to 85% of medical costs. Hospital facilities, although greatly expanded since World War II, are still considered inadequate. Doctors tend to be concentrated in the cities and are in short supply in some rural areas. The death rate, life expectancy, and infant mortality rate are similar to those of other industrialized nations. As is true of most developed countries, the principal causes of death are cancer and cardiovascular diseases."
"Because of this high level of reimbursement and coverage, French health care is among the most expensive in the world. France’s health care budget is the world’s third largest, accounting for 9.8% of GNP. If spending continues at this rate, the health service may be 11 billion euros in debt by the end of 2004 and 70 billion euros in debt by the end of 2020."
This link also states that health care is "free" if household income is less than 6,609 euros (about $9,000) per year. It doesn't say what the French pay for the "right" to unlimited health care.
"While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive."
"On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision."
My bad...sorry for confusing socialized medicine with socialism.
Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:35 pm
Adam F L I N T O I D
quote:Public D schreef:
Conservative, Adam, I don't see any need to engage in debate with those who have yet to research this issue in any substanial way. When you do, maybe we can have a heated discussion about it (or maybe about the sick irony of the Federal Reserve playing welfare office for your Wall Street dead-beats (think: welfare mothers).
I don't support the Federal Reserve System. I support Ron Paul for president who is the only candidate that would try and kill the inflation tax and $500 billion or so a year so for the federal Reserve tax.
Although I admit the plan does sound nice and I do support universal health care in theory I am anti-socialism and I do have some concerns.
How much would revenue we pay to lawyers go up?
How long would it take to see a doctor?
Would we be able to import enough foreign doctors to handle the increased patient load?
How many of these doctors would be from terrorist countries?
Didn't Bush's tax cuts work? if not then why are we not still in a recession? Would we go back into a recession under this plan?
Wouldn't this incease drug company profits?
Wouldn't this increase hospital profits?
Would administration costs be higher or lower than the private sectors? Although there is billions in profits in the private sector often times governments cost billions in inefficiency.
What would this plan cover? What would it not cover?
Would it be legal to purchase additional coverage to cover what the government does not cover?
Would the plan cover any alternative treatments?
Which beaurocrat decides what it covers?
Would the plan address any of the rising litigation costs?
Would the plan allow more U.S. students to enter into medical school or would they still be blocked by the AMA?
Why would this plan be different than the other failed ventures into socialized medicine?
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15401
Cost Spiral
Maine has launched an experiment not unlike experiments that already have failed badly in Kentucky, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Washington. As reported in previous issues of Health Care News, those states have experienced health insurance premiums so outrageously high that businesses moved out and people were forced to rely on the only affordable game in town, taxpayer-subsidized Medicaid. Even after cutting back on benefits, increasing co-payments, and raising eligibility rules, those states could not keep their Medicaid systems solvent and had to raise state income taxes. A temporary drop in health insurance premiums became a permanent increase in state taxes, with no improvement in access to health insurance."
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3945
"Under the system of socialized medicine in Canada and Europe, people die because waiting lists to see doctors are too long to permit them to receive cardiac care in time to save their lives. In Canada, for example, a patient typically must wait 24 days for an appointment with a cardiologist--and 15 additional days for the type of emergency bypass surgery that saved Bill Clinton's life. Similarly, a Swedish government survey showed that Swedes can be forced to wait as long as 11 months for a diagnostic heart X-ray and up to 8 months for essential heart surgery. The upshot, according to one research cardiologist, is that at least 1,000 Swedes die each year for lack of heart treatment."
Way to jump down that pro-life rabbit trail. 2 Points. Why do so many support the death penalty? 3-pointer. Sorry, I just want to communicate using simple us v. them, team-sports language so you can follow the ball. I, for one, can't follow the notion that 'entitlement' is capitalist lingo meant to denounce everything from unemployment protection to healthcare to unions, but never more properly used to describe the assumption of many in the higher classes for a car at sixteen, a paid college education at eighteen, a 50k starting salary at twenty-one and enough clothes, cars and gizmos to supply 5 city blocks all along. The mother of all entitlement programs.
Oh and 5 or 6 points for your slam dunk comment about the Founding Fathers' omission of universal healthcare proving its illegitimacy for all time. I'll remember it when your pals want to pass their marriage amendment.
But I'm afraid you get negative points for ripping off Fred Thompson's psych-ward joke: which is accidentally funny when you realize that it was Republicans like John Engler who completely abandoned the mentally ill, making seeking such help that much more, um, well, not your problem. Some prison guard's somewhere, right?
But you beat the buzzer with a grand slam dunk shot! Biggie wrote, "Do you really want some gum-popping, uncaring, bureaucrat deciding just what medical services they will allow you to access?"
Meet your health insurance claims officer, Biggie.
Finally, a crowd favorite. A map of countries with, or working on, unconditional universal healthcare for all . . . featuring U.S. Tax-payer supported programs in Iraq and Afghanistan:
by the way, its typical that people look askance at others personal decisions [the personal entitlements the "rich" bestow on their offspring] its called envy, jealousy, projection of their values onto others et al...
But I doubt any of them feel the need to apologize for providing for their children. They just have more resources than you and I.
but don't confuse it with the entitlements provided by the government, a separate entity from whence the revenue comes.
At least the "rich" kids you are so jealous are paid for out of their own families pockets.
We can gnash our teeth and pound our breasts about how life is unfair that we weren't born the children of Rockefellers, Bush's or Kennedy's or Buffett, Carnegie & Hilton, but then looking as to how some of those offspring turned out, I think we should be thankful.
_________________ Biggie
Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:05 pm
FlintConservative F L I N T O I D
quote:Public D schreef:
A supply-side economics fact check, featuring the Bush tax cuts:
Helping Working People — Economic policy should focus on improving conditions for working people.
Truth and Accuracy Matter — EPI research should be honest and rigorous.
Dignified, Remunerative Work — People must be provided with the capacity and opportunity for dignified, remunerative work for personal as well as societal benefit.
Strong, Effective Labor Movement — A strong, effective labor movement is essential for democracy and to ensure an equitable sharing of income and wealth.
Government For the People — Government should set standards and rules for markets, and should ensure the efficient provision of public goods and investments."
From faireconomy.org's website: "UFE raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. We support and help build social movements for greater equality."
Again, they both sound pretty biased to me.
One more question...I'm always amazed when the pro-abortion crowd points to those on the right in favor of the death penalty as being hypocrites. How can you equate, say, a Timothy McVeigh or a Ted Bundy with an unborn child (the epitome of innocence)? On a side note, we've executed something like 1,090 convicted criminals in the U.S. since 1976 compared to close to 50 million abortions. Which would you consider the greater tragedy?
Last edited by FlintConservative on Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Researchers examining the quality of the Canadian healthcare system cite several problems with the system: limited access to diagnostic equipment (such as MRIs and CT Scanners) and lengthy wait times for surgeries and serious physician shortages, which are particularly prevalent for general practitioners (GP) / family doctors. In some parts of the country waiting times to acquire a GP have been as long as several years. There have been some wait-time improvements through 2005 and 2006. Even so, as of 2004, five million Canadians were without a family doctor[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)[/url]
We are already running out of doctors even without "publicly funded" medicine.
"Americans may soon face a shortage of physicians that makes it hard to find convenient, quality health care. The shortage will worsen as 79 million baby boomers reach retirement age and demand more medical care unless the nation starts producing more doctors, according to several new studies.
The country needs to train 3,000 to 10,000 more physicians a year — up from the current 25,000 — to meet the growing medical needs of an aging, wealthy nation, the studies say. Because it takes 10 years to train a doctor, the nation will have a shortage of 85,000 to 200,000 doctors in 2020 unless action is taken soon."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm
Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:47 am
Biggie9 F L I N T O I D
"But you beat the buzzer with a grand slam dunk shot! Biggie wrote, "Do you really want some gum-popping, uncaring, bureaucrat deciding just what medical services they will allow you to access?"
Meet your health insurance claims officer, Biggie"
no "Dee", my insurance doesn't have that issue. I am in charge of who I select to see and IF they are not in the program, I can still elect to see them, knowing that I will be responsible for a certain percentage of the fee etc. Luckily, most health suppliers take PPO insurance, so the range of selection is quite broad, the services covered are adequate for me with several significant health problems.
No gum-cracking mindless bureaucrat telling me who I can and can't, when and where....and THAT WAS Frau Clinton's secret healthcare plan until it was exposed and a stake driven through its black heart.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
