What's $200k or $300k in a lifetime?

[jclay]

I never know whether to laugh or cry when people accuse Clinton, Obama, or the larger Democrat party, of being "liberal". Apart from a few social equality issues they are generally fairly conservative and play straight into the hands of big money/entrenched power. If one must use the terms "right" and "left", which strike me as dull knives, the Dems act, in the main, significantly to the right of center. As to liberal thought being a bad thing, without it we'd still be swinging from trees, the earth flat, Protestant religions un reformed, women barefoot, in the kitchen and not voting. One could go on ad nauseum; not the kind of world most of us want.

Failure to expand Medicare to be the single payer system for all of us has effed us over mightily. The folks who oppose it, frequently the beneficiaries of Tricare or Medicare, astonish me with their hyprocracy and lack of command of the basic structural and financial principles. There is something about authoritarian personality types, often ex-military/police/etc., vilifying social programs and government in general while accepting the benefits of them, that I can't quite get my head around.

Would that Obama had Johnson's guts and determination:

The President looked his old friend in the eye, Mr. Valenti recalled. ''He said: 'Dick, you've got to get out of my way. I'm going to run over you. I don't intend to cavil or compromise. I don't want to hurt you. But don't stand in my way.' ''

Mr. Russell, the patriarch of the Senate, a legislator respected even by those who disdained his defense of the old Southern ways, looked back at the President and spoke sorrowfully.

''You may do that,'' he replied, ''but by God, it's going to cost you the South and cost you the election.''

''If that's the price I've got to pay,'' said the President, ''I'll pay it gladly.''

Well, its still costing the Democrats the White South but I'm glad he stuck to his guns. Write some letters. Make some noise.

[dennis]

The ACA, while helpful to a small demographic, is tantamount to improving the food for the third class passengers on the Titanic. It is based on term insurance and has the associated fatal flaws. It was a complete sellout to the insurance industry and capitulation to the spectre of a tough fight that might not be won. It also gave govt haters some pretty good ammunition. Too bad Kucinich isn't the White House. He had the stones for the fight and completely grocked the need.

Holy crap! What he said. Highly recommend you check out the Time magazine article on health care/hospital/insurance costs. Mid 2013. Behind a firewall. Email me and I will happily forward the text.

[Jocko Homo]

[Chad]

Why doesn't this type of news make it on the national channels? Maybe I'm naive, but it seems more newsworthy than 90% of what is shown each day.

[vertical_doug]

Why doesn't this type of news make it on the national channels? Maybe I'm naive, but it seems more newsworthy than 90% of what is shown each day.

Because it is not a soundbyte and it is filled with those inconvenient facts backed by numbers...
The video is less about Obamacare and really deals with the heart of the matter which is the YOY price increases at hospitals. Hospitals are the biggest piece of the pie with the largest percent of increases. This is a ultimate failing of ACA, no provisions to deal with costs. Previous posts have already dealt with the single payer model on Medicare was the solution. But too simple and too cost effective for people with skin in the game.

[christian]

Medicare at 0. That's what would (help) save American healthcare.

[Jocko Homo]

But those huge increases in prices get accepted because of insurance, it's like the hospitals and insurance companies are in a feedback loop. And it's gotten to a point where the markups are so crazy that boutique/concierge medicine can provide the services in whole for less than that of a deductable with insurance plans in many cases.

I look at pets sometimes and think how 10 years ago, it was pretty cheap to get a dog/cat all said and done with shots, vet stuff, then people started getting insurance for their pets and the cost of owning a pet skyrocketed.

The line of reasoning that hospitals need the markup to pay for all those who can't pay is wearing thin. Take that one medicine that cost .75 cents but the hospital charged over 300 dollars- does that mean if the hospital wants to profit say 20 dollars on that pill, that there are 15-20 people who don't pay for everyone that does? And they do this on every item, and the incredible discrepancies between prices of these things across the country makes me not buy that line or reasoning, it doesn't really make sense.

NPR had a report on some concierge general practice, there was 2 doctor, and one nurse. Membership cost 50 dollars a month, the doctors had I believe 500 patients total- these patients could come in and see the doctors for the 50 dollar membership as much or as little as they saw fit. Another GP in town had 8 doctors but around 70 people as support staff with the vast majority of those people doing paperwork because of how crazy the bureaucracy and regulations have become that go the regular route in paying for medical care, their costs were vastly higher and the care was not any better. My moms a nurse and is always bitching about how inefficient things have become, one pill (even stuff like a tylenol) sometimes has to pass through 4 peoples hands because of all the crazy regulations administrators are dumping on the people who do the work.

[jclay]

Healthcare-NOW! - Action Alert: Write a Letter to the Editor About Senate Healthcare Hearing

[Scott G.]

This years 4 questions for Passover.

Isn't employer based health insurance one of the job killing government regulations
we keep hearing about on TV ?

How can American business be competitive when they have to pay for health insurance ?

Why don't people pay for their own insurance ?, maybe in a national insurance pool ?

Why is there a federal law entitling you to emergency care, but a federal law saying you have
to buy health insurance is a violation on your rights ?

[Christian Fox]

This years 4 questions for Passover.

Isn't employer based health insurance one of the job killing government regulations
we keep hearing about on TV ?

How can American business be competitive when they have to pay for health insurance ?

Why don't people pay for their own insurance ?, maybe in a national insurance pool ?

Why is there a federal law entitling you to emergency care, but a federal law saying you have
to buy health insurance is a violation on your rights ?

I've always thought employer-based health insurance was stupid. By burying the cost of insurance into compensation, the impression becomes that heath care is "free." It always seemed that way to me back when I had an actual job. Physically writing a check every month has a powerful effect and keeps you connected to what shit actually costs. I truly believe the disconnect contributes greatly to the abuse/overuse of health insurance. A former co-worker of mine once jammed his pinky playing basketball. A few days later I saw him doing something weird with a rubber band at his desk. I asked him what the hell he was doing, and he replied he was just doing the exercises his physical therapist had assigned him. Physical therapist? Yes, he was going to physical therapy for a jammed pinky. Twice a week for six weeks.

[jclay]

Tell your senator to support Bernie Sanders campaign for a universal single payer system!

New Push for Single Payer Healthcare for All

[j44ke]

Whatever. The SCOTUS continues to make most of what you or I might do irrelevant.

Money = free speech. Therefore whoever has the most money speaks loudest.

Really, I don't think anyone can imagine right now how this is going to change the way American democracy works. The limits on contributions created PACs and the proliferation of "non-profits" and other soft money to campaigns, and perhaps (PERHAPS) this will actually curtail some of those but only because the wealthy will now be able to flood campaigns and political parties directly. That may also create transparency that doesn't exist now, but okay, so we'll be able to see how many millions are coming from what select group of people? Great.

[jclay]

Managed to get this published in the local paper albeit substantially condensed. Feel free to plagiarize. Tax funded single payer is so logical and cost effective that it seems a slam dunk to me but fear of change and fear of having your basic world/self perspectives challenged seems a bridge too far for many, irrespective of the benefits it would bring.

If we desire periods without health care coverage, prefer to be separated from our cumulative health care contributions periodically (job change/loss) and don't want those contributions to gain value over time for our health care benefit in old age, then our current use of for-profit, private term insurance is perfect. If, on the other hand, we prefer a more cost effective healthcare system designed and funded so that services will be provided in an uninterrupted fashion throughout our lifetimes then private term insurance is unsuitable; for-profit term insurance simply doesn't, indeed can't, possess the necessary characteristics to meet those goals. Realizing that, many thoughtful countries have addressed their health care needs by adopting national single payer systems. Tax funded, national single payer systems support world class care, have no gaps in coverage and don’t periodically separate individuals from the benefit of their contributions as our system does. Due to reduced agency and health care provider administrative overhead as compared to that attendant the use of multitudes of individual insurance companies, as well as the lack of the mandate to increase shareholder value, single payer delivers health care services at substantially lower costs than we enjoy. Our ongoing health care controversy misses these points entirely and seems akin to passengers of the Titanic engaging in heated ideological arguments about whether the menu should have been Continental European or English and the waiters union or not, oblivious to a heading that would end in a collision with an iceberg. The difference is that the information necessary to make sensible health care system changes is available to anyone who cares to go to the trouble, maintain an open mind and simply search for what works irrespective of individual political ideology. With individual lifetime health care contributions in the hundreds of thousands of dollars it's worth the effort. With health care costs soaring and most of us simply wanting medically necessary healthcare when we need it, the funding structure and financial drivers of our system must be changed so that we are not separated from any of our lifetime contributions. Neither ObamaCare nor the other Republican offerings acknowledge, never mind address, these shortcomings and their serious negative ramifications; that is monumentally shortsighted and flawed.

The good news is that we already have a proven, successful and cost effective single payer system in operation; fundamentally all we need to do is improve, expand and properly fund Medicare for all of our citizens. House Resolution 676 proposes to do just that and it’s supported by Healthcare-Now and Physicians for a National Health Program. Medicare is large enough to have demonstrated its technical capability at scale and across the country, it has unmatched purchasing power, its superior administrative and cost efficiencies are a matter of public record and its decades of existence doesn't require plowing new constitutional ground. Using it as the financing vehicle for our entire country's health care would spread health risks across the maximum population possible. Those are the optimum characteristics one would want in a health care financing and risk spreading system. Expanded and improved Medicare would be perfectly suited to the task and would improve our health care, our country, our finances and our lives; all we need is the sense and political will to use it.

[Jonathan]

For the life of me I don't know why Corp America is not for a single payer system. To get that liability off the books and then be able to lobby down their financial responsibility just seems like common sense in a practical way.

[jclay]

For the life of me I don't know why Corp America is not for a single payer system. To get that liability off the books and then be able to lobby down their financial responsibility just seems like common sense in a practical way.

My best guess is because our current system reduces mobility of staff, particularly senior staff who are capable of taking customers elsewhere and who could start their own competing businesses.

John Clay: Medicare for all is an easy solution | Tallahassee Democrat | tallahassee.com

[jclay]

Worth reading.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/obamacares-empty-victory

[jclay]

Thursday, May 22 is National Single Payer Healthcare System Lobby Day in Washington DC and Call-In Day across the nation. If you want to improve our healthcare system so that all citizens have continuous coverage throughout their lives, there is no loss of coverage when in-between jobs and the average lifetime per-person cost is reduced then this is the time to get informed as to the available improvements and make your voice heard. Other countries pay substantially less per capita than we do while providing cradle to grave coverage for all of their citizens. We can do the same.

If you aren't familiar with the goals or operational details of single payer, if you think that the more than several hundred thousand dollars each of us will spend on our current system warrants becoming a more informed consumer, or if you're just skeptical of change then these four links will provide eye opening and useful information:

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/fi...%20Summary.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/fi...20-%202013.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/change/Myths-and...ngle-payer.pdf
National Lobby Day 2014 - We Won't Wait | Physicians for a National Health Program

Consider calling your representatives on May 22 and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 676 and your senators to co-sponsor S. 1782. The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121; an operator will connect you.

[sine]

If you aren't familiar with the goals or operational details of single payer, if you think that the more than several hundred thousand dollars each of us will spend on our current system warrants becoming a more informed consumer, or if you're just skeptical of change then these four links will provide eye opening and useful information:

I lived it and paid the resulting higher taxes. Fortunately I never needed out of the ordinary medical care in Canada, but my mom has. Took her 9 months to see a specialist-my mom is shocked that I can see one tomorrow. I could go on about a family member being airlifted from Hamilton to Buffalo and the result of the delayed treatment.

Anyhow, nothing is perfect, it's complicated but don't believe for one minute that it costs less….it costs plenty one way or the other.

[Christian Fox]

The VA debacle isn't helping the single payer argument

[vertical_doug]

The VA debacle isn't helping the single payer argument

It is a bit of apples to oranges comparision. The VA is not health insurance, it is much more. Everything from doctors, hospitals, etc etc. This differs from Medicare or a single payer of insurance in you can still go to outside doctors and hospitals.

VA is more a symptom of how servicemen are short changed by broken promises. The pay is terrible, but the carrot supposedly is the benefits on the back end. These never seem to get funded or remain underfunded. Both congress and the White House should be ashamed. But neither seem to be. . .