Michele Bachmann is feeling the heat over her vote against SCHIP. Americans United For Change is running this ad urging Bachmann to vote for the veto override later this week.
The thing is, its possible that Michele didn’t mean to vote against SCHIP. The House voting machine has befuddled her before.
Unfortunatley for Minnesota and the nation, this time Michele meant to vote the way she did. She defended her indefensible vote in a Strib op-ed last week.
Yet another reason to replace her with El Tinklenberg.
Does this surprise anyone? Anyone?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
First hiding in the bushes at a gay rally, then tonsil hockey with the NeoCon in Chief, now this.
Color me shocked.
No, not at all. It’s always interesting the people who care so passionately about fetuses but don’t care about them at all when they are actual children.
a fetus is a small child, anyhoo SChip is nothing more tha nsocialism run amok, expanding health insurance to folks who can afford their own, no body will die because of Ws veto
To the people who are up in arms about the SCHIP veto: Should the Government provide health insurance for all or a safety net for those who can’t obtain their own coverage?
If you prefer the former, we have a major philosophical disagreement. If you prefer the latter, the SCHIP veto shouldn’t really bother you that much.
Don’t confuse this post for me somehow supporting Bachmann — I am not a huge fan. But I did support the SCHIP veto after taking a closer look at what the expanded program really was.
It easy to say “we should make sure all children have healthcare access”. I don’t disagree. And I don’t think this veto was contrary to the goal of making sure American children have good healthcare.
hi john, you said “no body will die because of Ws veto”
I doubt you gave this statement much thought, and I doubt you did any research to support it. I thought about it and decided to do a little research. Here’s what I found.
According to the CBO, implementing the bipartisan SCHIP agreement would insure a total of 3.8 million otherwise uninsured children and “a total of about 3.2 million of these 3.8 million children — or 84 percent of them — are children who have incomes below the current eligibility limits that states have set.”
http://www.cbpp.org/9-25-07health2.htm
Presumably, uninsured children have greater mortality than insured, but let’s check it out. Here’s a study of child patients which found “Probability of mortality for the self-pay patients was twice that for insured patients; PIM2 mortality probability was 8.1% (95% CI, 6.2-10.0) for self-pay patients, vs. 3.6% (95% CI, 3.2-4.0) for the publicly insured and 3.7% (95% CI, 3.3-4.1) for the commercially insured.” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521095_3
So-o-o-o-o, if the bp agreement brings in another 3.2M kids (who are already eligible), and their mortality rate drops by 4.4% (8.1-3.7%), wellllll……
Yes, this is back of the envelope stuff, and I’d be happy to see better numbers if you’ve got ‘em, but it looks like W’s veto actually kills about 140,000 kids (not to mention the ones it just makes sicker).
So, you wanna rethink your position a little bit?
love, Alice
Rather than look at incomes of parents of Children so sick, look at the circumstances.
Here is a situation of a family making just over $60,000 annuallu. Dad is self-employed. Mom stays home to care for a 13 year old son who suffered traumatic brain injury and severe damage due to a car accident. Dad’s insurance company dropped him because of high medical claims for the son. He is unable to get Health Insurance because of the son’s needs. The CHIP program was his only method of getting help for his son. Out of pocket Medical Expenses are over $30K a year.That is not counting daily needs like home mortgage and other living expenses. If mom could work, she would. This is a true story.
The veto of Bush’s hurts families like this one who may have a decent income, but have Children who are above and beyond the basic needs of Medical care.There arew many families like this one, caught in the middle of amking too much money, yet cannot get Health Insurance for traumatic and hardship situations.
Those that voted against the SCHIP Bill will feel it next year come election time. Including Bachmann.
Bush Vetoes this Bill because he called it “Too expensive”. Yet, he doesn’t blink an eye when he goes asking Congress for another $150 BILLION for his little war in Iraq.
For the money that has been spent in Iraq, over $450 BILLION to date, this country could have solved the Health Care crisis in this country, given Veterans better benifits, and more. Perhaps Michele Bachmann ought to think about that the next time she votes NO on a bill.
I am really relishing the idea of Bachmann being able to articulate the merits of the free market in health care versus a DFLer who supports “quasi-socialism”
Only Michele will be able to stand up and articulate our cause in a state where so many Republican Politicians are going amok!
Oh, and good luck trying to beat her………word on the street is that she raised about 60K more than Walz this quarter
Not bad when you consider that they’re both freshman congress persons, though, one has the distinct disadvantage of trying to compete for dollars from a minority status! Go figure Michele comes out on top!
Remember, you HAVE to beat her this time……..or the district will be written off for quite some time :)
Alice -
Intelligent argument. Your numbers are compelling. Thank you for sharing.
Making this into a debate that has to be tied to Bush’s war spending is futile (most republicans won’t argue that we’ve spent too much on this war). Likewise, while an individual anecdote is interesting, I cannot base a policy discussion on it. Putting a face with an issue is a common technique but provides no idea of the magnitude of the problem.
Alice injected some good, new information to the dialogue. Doesn’t make me change my position, but it sure does make me wonder what the best alternative would be.
Alice,
Bush’s veto kills nobody. People are not denied access to medical care in this country even if they cannot pay. There are programs available to help people who do not qualify for Medicaid and do not have health insurance.
The expansion of SCHIP is a backdoor attempt at pushing for single payer health care. If these politicians want to insure more people, they should promote things like medical paperwork reform, tort reform, tax deductible medical savings accounts and the like. That will drop insurance costs for everyone and make insurance more affordable for people who do not have it.
@John and Chris
“Bush’s veto kills nobody…” directly related to life/death so to make those comments about the veto simply distracts from any relevant arguments you might make afterward and creates an emotional rise in your audience.
Ok, apparently the entire first part of my comment was excised.
It was basically a story about how a child I know recently almost died from lack of health insurance. What she had was imminently treatable as long as they caught it early - with the bureaucratic red tape delays of not having active coverage treatment was delayed and she came very close to death.
Her family would certainly qualify for the new SCHIP.
While of course lack of health care kills kids — the inability to get regular check-ups, for instance, means some things won’t be caught, I find it amusing that the standard for virture here is, “Well, it doesn’t kill any children!”
In other words, Bachmann voted for that bill, before she voted against it? Of course, there is always the old joke about Republicans - they believe life begins at conception, and ends at birth.
So, Gipper, we want to talk about ‘quasi-socialism’, eh? Lets talk about no-bid contracts for Haliburton. I mean, its the government handing out chunks of money to private industries that it deems acceptable, like Haliburton and Blackwater, with no accountability, and bypassing the mechanisms put in place to bring market forces into government acquisitions sure seems like ‘quasi-socialism’ to me.
So talk ‘bout quasi-socialism all you want - we can throw back examples of much greater sums of money being spent in market distorting ways for far smaller response.
DantheMan - the question here is that private sector health-care is no longer actually covering medical care. People who have paid into plans get dumped as soon as they have a problem that needs extensive care. The SCHIP expansion was designed at answer that problem. Its the reason why a lot of Republicans (and not notedly liberal ones either) voted for the bill.
We aren’t talking about universal coverage. We are talking about a healthy citizenry in times were the market forces skew the system towards expensive and unnecessary procedures and away from preventative care. The second link in Alice’s post speaks to part of this problem - what happens when there is little preventive care.(registration required)
DanTheMan…
Bachmann may have raised a few dollars more than Tim Walz is because less than 10% of the money raised comes from the actual people in the District. Most of her money comes from PACs that are from Insurance Companies, large and smaller Coorporations, GOP PACs, etc., that support Republican causes.
Much of Walz’s contributions come from the people themselves and PACs that are people driven, not Business driven. Big Difference. I give each quarter as much as I can.
Chris, you are living in the land of Oz, with all due respect.
The Republican version of Health Care is hoping that competition on the Open Markeet will drop the Health Care Premiums, or going out of the country for Perscription Drugs. Not going to happen. The GOP opposes any kind of plan9s0 that can make Health Care affordable and accessible for Americans in need.
The Insurance Companies are out to make mega Billions in profits, rather than to actually pay out claims. Has the Health Partners scandal not bring back memories when Mike Hatch went after them for overcharging clients while they gave their CEOs millions in Bonuses, trips, etc., years back for making the HMO so much money???
Who do you think are big contributors to GOP coffers??? The Health Insurers!!! Who do you think were the recipients of over $400 Billion Bush’s Health Care Plan early on ih his Administration…the Health Insures and Drug companies. Have costs gone down in 5 years??? Hell no!!!
The fact of the matter, and this is getting to the heart of the issue, is that the SCHIP program was going to cause some major problems. There was, for instance, a line-item that raised the taxes on cigars by 20000%.
Secondly, people believing that children aren’t getting the necessary health care they need is a misnomer. 3.8 million kids may not be under insurance, but it is not certain that the same 3.8 million kids may not be getting treatment from free clinics and other such things.
I’m a fan of the country doctor, a brand of doctor who is being pushed out of the arena by leftist hacks like those that post here on MN Publius, especially Noah “The Lying Thief” Kunin.
SCHIP kills the country doctor. That’s good enough for me to support President Bush’s veto.
Here is a breakdown of what a typical health provider (clinic, physician, hospital) recoups from payers:
Commercial & HMO Payers: 110% - 130% of costs
Medicare: 99% of costs
Medicaid: 80% of costs
Self Pay: 40% of costs
What would happen if Medicare and Medicaid-like programs paid for all of the care in this country? Easy — providers would shut down, decreasing access to healthcare and lowering the standard of care we’ve all come to expect. The commercial payers, while not a particularly virtuous bunch, are basically covering the real cost of our healthcare system while Government-sponsored payers pay providers at an unsustainable rate.
I agree with expanding the SCHIP in order to provide access for more children; however, it is a pipedream to think that Government can solve the healthcare crisis.
Yes, Republicans tend to accept money from Insurance companies.
But on the other side, Democrats accept tons of money from the Unions. For Betty McCollum, Union PACs are her #1 donor by four times over the next category. For Tim Walz, 4 of his 5 top contributors are Unions (the other being a Law/Lobbying firm).
And what do the Unions lobby for? Maximizing healthcare benefits which causes companies to have to go and buy full-service benefits from United or HealthPartners. The companies, who provide the employment for the majority of us, may want to be innovative and provide the OPTION of a lower-cost, HSA-type plan. But the Unions would have nothing of it. To them, it is all about “sticking it to the man”, which ultimately shifts money from an employee’s paycheck into higher healthcare premiums.
Nobody here is squeaky clean. Money is part of politics on both sides of the aisle.
What would happen if Medicare and Medicaid-like programs paid for all of the care in this country? Easy — providers would shut down, decreasing access to healthcare and lowering the standard of care we’ve all come to expect.
Huh? If Medicare and Medicaid paid for all the care in the country then all the care in the country would get paid for. As opposed to the current system where you have a multitude of insurers with a multitude of billing systems paying for the millions of uninsured whenever they get sick and have to go to Urgent or Emergency care. A two tiered universal single payer plan providing, at the very least, universal basic care for everyone and, for those with a little extra dough, a few more services, will be the final answer to this problem. How long it will take to get there depends on how badly the GOP gets whipped in ‘08. If it’s not whipped too badly, it’ll take a few more years. If it’s a whipping of biblical proportions, it could happen before ‘12. Rest assured, it’s going to happen. It’s the only answer that makes any sense.
What is truely sad is no one wants to be honest at all about what this turned into. Too many went too far and are trying to hide what this truely is which is socialized medical care. It includes adults as well as children! The major flaw in this program which I believe was done on purpose, is the fact many will drop their employer coverage for this s-chip as it will be cheaper for them as the s-chip is a subsidy. I can make $70,000- 80,000 and if I turn down my employers insurance I can qualify for the s-chip, how is that going to help anything besides shut doen competition in the medical fields.
S-chip has potential and was not a terrible program previously, but what the democrats tried to put in now is a shame and I feel if you want to point fingers of who could die from this, blame the democrats as they could not just leave the program alone or just include more kids, no they push for so much more and now it is in lombo because of their greediness and desire for socialized medical care.
The PACs from Unions are people driven, not Coorporations!! Another difference.
Democrats have been supported by Unions and people driven issues. The GOP looks out for the Big Boys of Business.
The major flaw in this program which I believe was done on purpose, is the fact many will drop their employer coverage for this s-chip as it will be cheaper for them as the s-chip is a subsidy. I can make $70,000- 80,000 and if I turn down my employers insurance I can qualify for the s-chip,
First of all, none of the above is true and second of all, if it was, and you did, you would be a moron.
“The PACs from Unions are people driven, not Coorporations!!”
Pffft. Tell that to Jimmy Hoffa.
“Americans United For Change” is nothing more than another “MorOn.com” clone that hasn’t been properly introduced to the American public…yet. Michele is standing on firm ground here and she knows it.
I love the fact that Democrat numbskulls are wading into this cynical ploy chin-deep. Socalized medicine made Billary a laughing stock once, and this time she’ll have a full cast of characters to share the stage with!
Blogger, Big Kahuna -
SCHIP doesn’t shut down private medicine in this country. It doesn’t even come close. While there are people on the left who like to look at SCHIP and see it doing that, it doesn’t.
Its intellectually dishonest to defend the veto as necessary to stop a result the vetoed bill did not have in mind. Also, Big Kahuna, unless you are 24 years old, you couldn’t sign up for SCHIP. Unless you live in New York, you couldn’t even if you were 24, and making 70k. Plus, I think you have to be a family, not an individual to qualify for the higher ceiling.
So we aren’t talking about a government takeover, or free health care for people making 50 grand a year. Thats simply not how the law works. I know it is easier to say ‘we’re holding the line against government over-reach’ than ‘we oppose healthcare for sick kids’. But that doesn’t change that SCHIP was a common-sense law vetoed by a very uncommon sense President.
“Huh? If Medicare and Medicaid paid for all the care in the country then all the care in the country would get paid for.”
Get paid for? really? When the Government has a history of reimbursing our clinicians at well-below their costs, are they really being paid? Or are they essentially becoming a Government employee accepting the terms and conditions of the biggest, most bullying corporation in the land, the Federal Government, Inc.
Let’s start with this question: What kind of healthcare delivery system to Americans want? I’ll maintain that they want one that:
- Allows them choice in providers, choice in what they are treated for, choice in procedures, choice in health plans
- Does not ration medical care
- Allows a patient to seek out and utilize the latest in medical techniques and technology
Government-run healthcare will accomplish none of the above goals, and it will in fact be counter to them. Reforms are needed, yes. But not by nationalizing the medical industry in American.
“The PACs from Unions are people driven, not Coorporations!! Another difference. ”
Ah yes, thanks for correcting me. Those completely voluntary union dues, which are always set at very reasonable amounts, go to further Union work on behalf of the individual. Riiight…….
Whereas corporations are always bad, sinister, and greedy. Take away the corporations in this country, and you would take away the problems, right?
Absolutely.
But our current system allows that for only a very few people. A large number of people have health plans tied to their work, and those employers have picked plans that are of lowest cost to them. Many health plans allow only going to see in-network providers, I have heard more than a few cases of people who could not see this or that cancer specialist, say, because they weren’t in network. And, of course, it is often not the patients or doctor’s choosing procedures, but the insurance companies. And of course insurance companies ration health care. I have a friend who had a child born prematurely who was kicked out of the hospital 6 weeks before she was even supposed to be born. The nurses said that was because the hospital wants to appeal to insurance companies, so the average time their preemies spend in the hospital gets shorter and shorter — who does that serve? And of course, for techinques and technology, it’s only if the insurance company will pay. My brother is an ER doctor and is thinking of quitting because he sees lives lost because of things the insurance companies (or, when the patient is uninsured the hospital) won’t pay for.
Competition is all about insurance companies lowering costs to employers, and about providers lowering costs to insurance companies — not about the patient. Insurance companies are for profit, designed to make money — how does that serve the public?
Of course, the SCHIP debate isn’t about this. It’s about getting kids health care. And all this rhetoric about overreach is just rhetoric — as John S. says so well.
(“Absolutely” being in response to Blogger’s previous comment…. I very much want the health care program he descibes. Unfortunately, I don’t have it, and neither do a vast majority of other people.)
Allows them choice in providers, choice in what they are treated for, choice in procedures, choice in health plans
I have employer supplied health insure, for which I pay a reasonable amount but don’t have any choice other then just me or me and my family. I have to abide by the rules set forth by the insurer as to what I can be treated for and by whom I can be treated. I have a limited selection of procedures that I have access to. This access is set by the insurer.
Does not ration medical care
I can only see my physician a set number of times over the course of the year unless approved by my insurer for a condition that my insurer must approve as a insured condition. No rationing there?
Allows a patient to seek out and utilize the latest in medical techniques and technology
I can only see approved physicians and approved specialists and can only be examined with approved equipment and approved procedures.
This is how the current real world is. A multi or two tiered universal single payer system would take the for profit insurance industry out of the equation and would put medical decisions back where they belong, between my doctor and I. Kip Sullivan has written extensively about this topic and offers the only reasonable course out of the death spiral that the current system is in.
Great. Then let’s go to a universal health care system like that of Great Britian. Right? Isn’t that what all of you people are really pushing for?
Well, read this article from today’s Agence France Presse titled,
“English ‘pull own teeth’ as dental service decays.” The article reports:
“Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.
Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.
Others have used superglue to stick crowns back on, rather than stumping up for private treatment, said the study. One person spoke of carrying out 14 separate extractions on himself with pliers.
More typically, a lack of publicly-funded dentists means that growing numbers go private: 78 percent of private patients said they were there because they could not find a National Health Service (NHS) dentist, and only 15 percent because of better treatment.”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071015160912.2jq4i1wm&show_article=1
This is more evidence that universal health care leads to health rationing and less care. If you people keep pushing to go down this road, health care won’t be referred to as SCHIP. It will be SHIT.
And Blogger, imagine the Unions suddenly going away. In that case, do you see wages for the common worker going up or down? Do you see the richest 0.1% of the population suddenly becoming vastly more wealthy? Do you see the remaining 99.9% suddenly becoming vastly more poor? Increased Union membership in the next 10 years will be the most important component in our economy healing itself after the nightmare of Reagan/Bush economic management.
“Bachmann picks Bush over Sick Kids”
nice headline. could just as easily have read:
“Democrats choose to give free healthcare to middle-income adults while childrens’ access problems go unaddressed”
Then let’s go to a universal health care system like that of Great Britian. Right? Isn’t that what all of you people are really pushing for?
Yes Chris, that’s exactly what all of us people want. Because all of us people can’t imagine the United States ever being able to do anything better then Great Britain.
Well, Richard, the pubs ARE better….
Richard,
It’s not just Great Britian. The same thing happens all over the world. The reason is simple economics. You cannot have the government controlling private industry, like health care, and expect to have good results. That is called socialism and it’s failed everywhere it’s been tried.
“Yet another reason to replace her with El Tinklenberg”.
And your point is that Tinklenberg is the only candidate that will vote for children’s healthcare? Bob Olson is also another reason to replace Michele Bachmann. He’s honest about his stances on the issues. He appeals to both democrats and republicans and is beholdened to no one.
And I do want single payer health insurance. The rhetoric against it is just rhetoric and corporate scare tactics. I know a doctor that practices in Canada and he is astonished that the U.S. is still stuck with private health insurance providers. His patients are able to see him sooner and more often; and he can deliver quality health care (and preventative health care) without an insurance company telling how to treat his patients.
A major problem many of the government programs are trying to solve are based on the fact that most health insurance is provided to people by their employers as part of their compensation package. Employers have an incentive to reduce their costs and employees have not power to demand increases in service quality. It also means that since people tend to switch jobs often insurance companies have no reason to maintain their patients health in a preventive manor because the same person they spend money on to stay healthy may switch providers in a few years while that same insurance company inherits a patient from another company that had no preventative programs.
This current system came about in large part due to government regulation during WW2 that set salaries and caused businesses to attract employees from the depleted labor force of the day with fringe benefits like health insurance. This standardization of attaching insurance to employment has caused problems ever since. The idea that our current system is anywhere near a free market is simply not true.
The Fraser Institute in Canada provides information on the backlogs to get treatments under the Canadian Single Payer system. Here are the most recent wait times:
Orthopedic surgery - 40 weeks
Plastic surgery - 35 weeks
Neurosurgery - 32 weeks
The shortest waiting time was for oncology - 5 weeks. Nothing like letting that cancer spread while you wait for a doctor to see you, eh?
What Kerosene said is exactly right.
And I agree with something Eva said: “Competition is all about insurance companies lowering costs to employers, and about providers lowering costs to insurance companies — not about the patient.”
Yes - because we have an employer-based healthcare model. Nobody who is intelligent about this issue is trying to preserve that model.
I say let’s get healthcare coverage to be an individual’s responsibility, not an employer’s, and use Government to create a playing field where this can be possible.
Let’s not overreact and let our healthcare become the largest Government bureaucracy in the history of this country!!!
Anyone want to make a guess at how long it takes to get an appointment scheduled for an MRI in Canada as opposed to the US????? The answer is at least 4X the waiting period!!!!! This is a major problem/issue!!! As someone who works in the health care field, I can attest to the importance of MRI’s and diagnosing an individuals ailment!!! I am hopeful that we don’t follow the road to socialized medicine ie…..THE ROAD TO SERFDOM!
My favorite quote by Michele Bachmann, “I feel to compelled to STAMP OUT socialism wherever it tries to rear its ugly head!”
Also,
Why is it that, on a regular basis, we see various dignitaries from around the world fly into the Mayo clinic for various medical procedures??? I thought our system of health care was terrible???
:)
I can’t wait for the laundry list of liberal rationalizations on this one!
I’ll bite.
You are confusing the quality of medical services versus the insurance situation and access to these services. We have amazing medical services. And if you are wealthy, you have access to whatever you want…
Also, we can raise the specter of socialism all we want, but it’s a strawman. (Or a straw-ideology.) This isn’t socialism, this isn’t a national health service, this is allowing low-income kids access to health care. Let’s argue this on its merits. If you are so concerned about socialized medicine, argue against it when it’s actually proposed. Don’t deny kids health care because of some specter of ideology. Arguing against SCHIP because it takes a long time to get an MRI in Canada is nothing but a distraction.
These are real kids.
To be more succinct, visting dignitaries fly from all over the world to the Mayo Clinic because they don’t have Blue Cross.
That HMO’s don’t ration Health Care is full of shit.
When my husband’s retirement plan with IBM had a Choice between Medica and health Partners, we stayed with Medica because we could afford the premiums that were half of what HP was wanting for the same plans.
If I went to the proper Network provider, things were ok for the General Stuff. I have a Degenerative Eye Disease only the MAyo CLinic can treat. I cannot tell you how manyn ropes I had to jump over to get refferals from the Network to Mayo, often the requests were denied because I went over the 5 visits allowed per year that the HMO would cover. 5 visits to Mayo can occur over a few months time with me.
We decided to look into different plans through my husband’s current employer than through the IBM Retirement plan. It’s not perfect, but I can see my Doctor at Mayo for my Eyes as often as needed and keep with the other Clinic for the Genreal Upkeep stuff.
Yet, there are families in the US with Children so sick, they need something like the SCHIP plan to give them something. Who cares if the income is $60K??? Depending on where one lives, the cost of lliving takes clost to half of after taxed income. That does not leave much for Medical costs if a child has a traumatic Health Issue.
Again. All of the programs like S-chip are trying to fix the symptoms of the problem rather than it’s root cause. Health care that is attached to a persons employer is the root cause that has created huge gaps in coverage while creating the ridiculous fact that the insurance companies that have to pay for care have little incentive to keep people healthy in the first place. None of the programs like s-chip will do anything to solve the problem even if they do help a few people deal with the costs of the current system. If s-chip works it will mean that many fewer people with a strong desire to see the system have the overhaul it needs.
I don’t get it, Blogger. Your anecdotes might lead one to conclude that Canada is full of the dead and dying, all for lack of doctors. How come every statistic I read says that Canadians live longer than and are gnerally healthier than Americans,even though they spend less per capita on health care?
Come to think of it, most of the developed world is healthier and lives longer than Americans. Could it be that our health care system really is faulty?
Maybe it is because we are all fat and never get any exercise. I agree that our health care system is part of it but it is not the only factor. Our problems also do not eliminate the problems in the other systems.
I must correct a common misconception.
Not one dime of Union dues money goes into a Union PAC, it is against the law. Union PACS are supported by voluntary donations, usually in amounts under 25 dollars by union members. The media almost always gets it wrong and says this or that Union gave money to candidate X when in fact it came from their PAC. Most Union PACS were created after the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in the late 40’s.
To repeat NO DUES MONIES ARE SPENT ON DONATIONS TO CANDIDATES!
Union PACS support candidates that support unions, just like corporate PACS support those who support corporations.
I wish you people would do some basic fact checking before you spout out your talking points, it’s really not that hard, unless you don’t care about the truth and wish only to mislead.
Medical costs are higher in this country than any other industrialized country, for that extra cost burden we have a higher infant mortality rate, a lower life expectancy and a lower quality of health life (how many years you can expect to live in good health)than other western nations. Go to the WHO website for the facts. We pay much, much more for poorer outcomes.
Health care is already rationed in this country. It’s rationed by insurance company claims adjusters who spend their days thinking up ways to NOT pay your claim. The average for profit insurance company charges over 30% for overhead costs, Medicare/Medicaid operates on less than 10%.
If you are wealthy, you have great health care, If you can afford very good health insurance you have good health care. If you work at Union job you probably have good heath care. If you’re self employed lower middle class family($30,000-60,000), you probably can’t afford health insurance. If you are very poor, you have good health care. If you’re elderly you have adequate to good health care depending on your finances. The working poor, holding 1, 2 or sometimes 3 jobs to make ends meet are the ones getting screwed in our system.
The current system is broken, the increases in costs to businesses and employees are unsustainable. Health care costs will consume all of the GDP in a few short years unless something is done. The market solution has utterly failed to provide health care in a cost effective, fair and equitable manner.
For more information about costs of insurance premiums, verusu inflation and wages and and other information go to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s website http://www.kff.org and look for summary (#7673).
Chris,
The program for people who make too much money for Medicare and can’t afford private health insurance is: get sick and die, or get sick,go to the emergency room for hyper expensive care you can’t pay for, go bankrupt trying to pay the bills (but thanks to bankruptcy “reforms” you still owe), and lose everything you’ve worked for, while everyone else (that’s you and me) picks up the tab by paying higher costs. Makes perfect sense to me.
Rick, thanks for adding some things I failed to add. No Union dues go to candidates. So many people get that wrong.
Union PACs are voluntary. My Husband is CAP chair for his UAW local. All monies donated are done via selling a raffle ticket for a drawing of say a New Ford Truck or an American made Car that costs $1 each. A member can buy as many tickets as they want. Proceeds go to the PAC to support candidates that support Labor.
I can tell by the way Michele Bachmann votes, she is no friend of Labor or those working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet, let alone pay for Health Care on the open market.
“The market solution has utterly failed to provide health care in a cost effective, fair and equitable manner.”
The market solution? You mean the one where 50% of the care (in the same KFF studies you cite) is paid for by the Government, if you combine Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, TriCare (military), and the VA?
Before we sign up for a healthcare system run by the ultimate fat-cat monopoly (the Government) let’s give the REAL free-market healthcare system a chance. What we have today is 1/2 government healthcare, and it ain’t working either!!
I stand corrected on my assertion that actual Union Dues somehow make it to the PAC’s. While it doesn’t change my opinion of Union’s, I apologize for this error.
I’m really getting attacked on my “rationing” and “choice” points. If you read my post carefully, I said that:
1. American’s didn’t want rationing in their healthcare, but they instead wanted choice
2. Reforms are needed in our current system
3. I don’t think Government-run healthcare will allow for an environment that minimizes rationing and maximizes choice
I never said that our current system is hitting a home-run. I would be insane to make such a claim. We clearly, however, have different ideas on how to fix what we’ve been dealt. I say let the free market (WHICH WE DON’T HAVE TODAY) help with the problem, but others who don’t trust markets want the Government to take over healthcare.
Unions are a major reason why our healthcare system is in the state it is in. They have done more than anyone else to prolong the dysfunctional employer-based system that we have today.
So is Healthcare malpractice (9% of our healthcare dollar).
HMO overhead expenditures, that is, their payments for things other than medical care, equal about 20 percent of total HMO revenues. The main categories of HMO overhead expenditures are marketing, policing doctors, lobbying, obscene salaries and perks for management, and profit for insurance company shareholders. Under the traditional Medicare program, Medicare pays providers directly; there is no HMO middleperson and, therefore, no HMO overhead to siphon off 20 percent of Medicare’s payments before it reaches providers. But under the HMO portion of the Medicare program, Medicare pays the HMO middlepeople and HMOs, in turn, pay providers, but only after the HMOs have scraped off 20 percent of their payments from Medicare to cover their overhead.
The above is from:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Sept2003/sullivan0903.html
First we get insurance companies out of the equation, then we can deal with the smaller problems.
Anybody who blames the failures of the current system on the market have no idea what they are talking about. There is almost no part of the current system that was not created through government regulation or mandate. Yes, the current system is broken but to make up stories about how it is the fault of market generated insurance companies is either misinformed or dishonest.
The smaller overhead costs of government run insurance programs are in part due to the fact that they can pay whatever they please to use the infrastructure paid for by those paying full price. The hospitals, doctors, nurses and equipment are there to use because full payment by the other insurance companies have made them worth while.
We have an almost completely socialized educational system in the United States as well and lag far behind other countries in terms of test scores. That is true despite spending as much or in some cases more as a percentage of GDP than those countries. There are too many factors to simply compare raw statistics like infant mortality from one country to another and have them mean anything.
Richard:
1. Regarding the overhead costs of healthcare, I’ve seen anywhere from 14-18%. Maybe its 20%, but that is far from an agreed-upon figure.
2. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, SCHIP, and any other Government payer also has overhead costs. It isn’t like you go from 15% overhead for insurances to 0% for Medicare. It is a bureaucracy with all the associated cost of doing business. It doesn’t run itself, and claims don’t adjudicate themselves.
3. Monopolies have no incentive to be efficient. Make the payer system into a government monopoly, and do you really think you’d see innovation and efficiency?
Okay blogger, let’s compromise and call it 18%, now add to that the costs to health care providers of dealing with the mulititude of insurance companies, each with their specific systems. Also, add to that the costs of insurers delaying the payments as long as possible to keep that money working in their bank accounts. It’s been estimated the end result by removing insurance companies from the health care system will be a savings to the system of 27 to 30%. This is without any other changes in the system. Market forces can still be at work with doctors and facilities.
Medicare and Medicaid require paperwork and special regulations with their billing. The Medicaid billing system can be among the most inefficient of all that a doctor need to navigate.
Medicare and Medicaid sit on claims for bogus reasons.
So now the number is up to 30%? I’d like to see the details behind that figure. Keep in mind that 1/2 of our terribly inefficient system today is funded by Government, and interestingly that 1/2 doesn’t control costs any better than the other 1/2.
Studies that attempt to measure excessive administrative spending by insurers (as opposed to providers) typically compare private-sector U.S. insurers to Medicare or to the national systems of other countries, notably, Canada. Medicare’s overhead is 2 to 3 percent while the overhead of private-sector insurance companies ranges from 15 to 30 percent.
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/may01sullivan.htm
This cuts administrative costs for insurers because a public insurer devotes a much lower proportion of revenues to overhead (marketing, supervising doctors, underwriting, lobbying, obscene salaries for management, and profits) than private-sector insurers do. It also cuts administrative costs for providers because providers have to bill only one payer, not hundreds.
This feature, by itself, would cut the U.S. health care bill by 10-15 percent if it were extended to all Americans.
Second, the one payer in a single-payer system must have the authority to set limits on what doctors, hospitals, and drug companies charge. This feature could easily cut another 10-15 percent.
http://labornotes.org/node/732
How much more do you need? Google Kip Sullivan and read a little bit. I promise, it won’t hurt.
Medicare and Medicaid require paperwork and special regulations with their billing. The Medicaid billing system can be among the most inefficient of all that a doctor need to navigate.
Medicare and Medicaid sit on claims for bogus reasons.
Oh yeah, where did you come up with those factoids. Links would be nice.
“Second, the one payer in a single-payer system must have the authority to set limits on what doctors, hospitals, and drug companies charge. This feature could easily cut another 10-15 percent.”
I’m sorry to bring up this word again, but geez that sounds alot like Socialism. Why is it that the Unions will fight to the death if their members are ever going to experience a paycut, but giving a 15% aycut to the doctors, nurses, lab techs, admitting clerks, etc. is a great thing? What about when all of those nurses are dues paying SEIU members? I guess you just keep digging until you find the people who aren’t Unionized and cut their pay. What kind of system is that.
First of all, did you read the link? Tons more information there. Second, if doctors and hospitals are charging 15% more in an attempt to recoup administrative costs, then with a single payer system a 15% cut in pay would be no net loss. Third, this would be socialism the same way that the DoD and National Park Service and the University system and the Enviromental Protection Agency is socialism. Fourth, I don’t see any links yet.
Another reason why Tinklenberg should replace Bachmann? Forgetting about the “other guy” in the race aren’t you guys?
http://www.bobolson.org/node/123
Bob Olson is the progressive choice in the 6th.
I’ll gladly take a look at the link the next time I’m researching the topic. I’ll consider it along with the other sources of information out there so I can consider the entire body of work, not just one person’s point-of-view. Thanks for sending it along.
Clinicians certainly do have to build administrative costs into their pricing. The people who register you, the coders who code the medical records (coding which is driven by Medicare rules), the billers to prepare claims (which still has to be done whether it is Medicare or Blue Cross), the staff who review denials as they come in (of which Medicare and Medicaid are proportionately high). Yes, clinicians have to build that into their pricing, and the fact it is doesn’t go away when you get rid of insurance companies.
Throwing more government money at this issue doesn’t create reform. These problems are not fixed by single payer.
I’m out — I think the horse died long ago.
Hey, I got a great idea, why not CHARGE our soldiers for their health care. After all a private makes about $14,000 a year, he or she can afford health insurance. That’ll teach ‘em to go and get shot or blown apart by an IED. Sorry, I need to see you health insurance card before we can medivac you to the field hospital.
We make deal with our soldiers and sailors and airmen, if you get hurt or injured we will care for you. If you get killed we will bury in a cemetery, lest we forget your sacrifice. We made a deal with our veterans too, if you honorably serve your country, we take care of you when you are sick or injured, and bury you when you die, lest we forget your sacrifice. It has been this way since the time of the ancient Greeks. are you going to break this covenant with our heroes in the name of market driven health care?
What about the elderly, promises were made, when you get old, someone will care for you if you can’t care of yourself. Are you going to break that covenant with Grandma and Grandpa?
I, for one, am not willing to break the promises made to those who paved the way for me.
Now I read in this thread that is the Unions fault that we have a system of employer based health care. I suppose it is, just like is the unions fault that we went from the 12 hour day, 6 day work week to the 10 hour, then 8 hour day and 5 day work week. They also brought us such outrages as paid vacations and holidays, pensions and retirement plans, ended child labor, gave us overtime pay, brought safety to the work place, and enabled the greatest expansion of the middle class in history of the world. All bought and paid for by sweat and blood. People died to improve their working conditions. None of this came from the benevolence of capital, it came from standing up to capital. And it could all go away, it’s being eroded now. We already have a permanent underclass of unseen immigrant labor being exploited in ways that would make Carnegie and the other “Robber Barons” cringe. Some of you need to learn more about Unions that what you saw in “Hoffa” with Jack Nicholson.
Free Market conservatives would have us return to the “Gilded Age” of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Is that what we want as a society? Count me out.
Note that the Nobel prize for economics was awarded to 3 economists who point out how the market fails is some applications.
Conservatives endlessly repeat the mantra that business can do it better and cheaper and more efficiently than government without any proof. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it so. Some things are better handled by the government, delivery of basic services such as water and sewer are brought to the public very efficiently at a low cost. With the safety that proper regulation can bring. What we see in China is capitalism unfettered by regulation, lead paint on toys, unsafe foods, environmental disasters, slave labor exploitation of women and children working in prison-like compounds to bring you cheap sneakers and underwear at Wal-Mart.
I’m all for capitalism, I use to be a small business owner, but you cannot rely on the Free Market to control everything, it will play out to it’s logical conclusion, maximization of profit above all else, to the detriment of our country, our people and our planet.
KH, Most of the countries that rank higher in education test scores than us have a more socialized education system than ours, with the addition of free higher education. What’s the carrot to do well in school if in the end you’re stuck in the same socio-economic class you’re in now.
We like to think of England as a class rigid society when in fact, the U.S. is more so. We have a myth of upward mobility, the self-made man, Horatio Alger. Statistics show it ain’t so. recent studies have shown that almost all people end up where they came from, no better off than their parents.
Studies also show that most Americans think their economic status is much higher than it is. We all think where going to be rich.
If you really want to let loose the entrepreneurial power in this country offer a free college or vocational education to every high school graduate. The increased income taxes would pay for it with a surplus to spare. It only takes the will to do it.
Unions are only out for the few officers at the top getting rich off the sheeple supporting them… i know, I was in a uniobn for 14 years..I saw how it worked… “Work union live better” is a joke..union workers are the laziest, most demanding, most over paid,least educated workers in America
john, apparently you never met my husband. Nor would you want to. For he and others like him do not fit your description at all.
rick, excellent posts!! You blow john out of the water!!
Rick,
Our current k-12 system is as socialized as it can possibly be and has failed, completely. All this while costing the same or more than other countries. Your idea about placing the blame for this failure on the fact that higher education must be paid for is interesting but I have my doubts. Higher education in this country is the one place we tend to do fairly well and have thousands of people who come here to willingly pay for the opportunity even if they might have a free or low cost option back home. As for a free education providing enough income taxes to pay for itself I would ask if the fact that some of those people would not have better jobs even after an education was figured in. Also the fact that an increased supply of professionals would depress the salary market which in turn would reduce income taxes. Also the fact that the labor market for entry level jobs (that pay a lower income tax rate) would be tighter meaning higher wages meaning increased costs for our most basic goods and services. That kind of suggestion may sound good to say but since the economy is so complicated there is a good chance a broad stroke like that would have consequences that are not all positive.
My point though was the use of broad statistics like infant mortality and life expectancy do not give us much usable information while comparing one health care system to another. There are simply too many factors that must be accounted for and the Micheal Moore, Rush Limbaugh school of staticts will get us a solution that is very likely worse than the problem.
There are 3 major things that we have to deal with in our healthcare system which the Canadians do not:
- The effects of violence on healthcare
- The effects of drugs on healthcare
- Illegal immigration (Canada’s is a drop in the bucket compared to ours, per capita)
I would claim that the first two items are actually made worse by our school system failures.
john, sir, I apologize if I’ve ever offended you. You’ve made my morning. Here I am, sleepy, sucking down coffee and trying to get my eyes open, quite unenthusiastic about a long day of meetings, and I hop on here to find your brilliant and unorthodox style of comedy.
I mean, that was a joke, right? Ranting about uneducated union members in a post riddled with misspellings and atrocious grammar? And the concept of “union members are uneducated and lazy; I know, I was one”-simply priceless!
I’d advise caution, though, in where you present this routine. Cops, corrections officers, firefighters…I just don’t see any of them taking it in the light-hearted spirit you so obviously intend.
Rick,
As for the health care issue. Your use of the examples of soldiers may be the most fanciful straw man I have ever heard. I have always bee against the war but to suggest that those you disagree with on health care would not understand the difference between the health care system needed by people throughout their life time and those on a battle field is strange and petty.
To use China as an example of the free market is laughable. The basic needed government structures needed for the type of market most refer to are not in place in China. Those would be things like property rights, individual liberties like speech and assembly and a court system that provides a fair hearing over civil as well as criminal matters. Without those there is no free market. China is an authoritarian country in which they have provided many businesses the ability to do whatever they want without consequences. Many of these things are true for the “gilded age” you speak of as well where government provided some businesses with special protections.
In order to have the discussion about how to fix the health care system we have to be honest about what has happened in the past and who we are. If everything you promote Rick is a socialist solution than I would say that makes you a socialist. It is fine there are plenty of nice, smart socialists but to pretend that government control of health care, education, labor, transportation, utilities, property, etc. is not socialism seems a bit delusional.
A question for those who are ever-critical of the Canadian and European healthcare models: if they’re so awful, and so hated by the citizenry, why do they continue to exist? These are democracies we’re talking about, for that matter democracies that tend to have much higher voter turnout than we do. And yet there have been no revolts, via the ballot box or through other means, against this apparently inefficient system.
Tanuki,
As with most socialized systems a majority of the people believe they are getting more than they have to pay for. As long as 51% of the people pay less then they otherwise would the program will continue. It doesn’t matter what the overall program costs are if the 49% have to pick up the difference.
But cost aside, if the system wasn’t providing quality care, shouldn’t we be seeing party platforms calling for it’s disintegration? And shouldn’t they be wildly successful?
Well you can’t leave cost aside. If people feel they would have to pay for the same care they are receiving for “free” they won’t take the chance. They also know that there may be little chance of government reducing their taxes even if they stopped providing the services. So they take what they have and complain about it’s failures. If you read or listen to British news regularly the problems with health care are a fairly large topic.
p.s. Plus in the UK people can and often do purchase supplemental insurance to fill in for the times that the state run system fails. Canada is different as private health insurance is illegal.
Yeah, I guess you socialists have a point after all. England’s socialist health care system has reduced the need for it’s citizens to even visit a health professional at all!
As Lenin said, “To each according to his need”, and if you can pull out your own teeth, you certainly don’t “need” to be bothering a dentist.
Just imagine what socialized medicine could do for those whiny cancer patients that are always clogging the waiting rooms!
Did I just say cancer patients? Well, Canada’s socialized helath care system has already started dealing with them.
MRI costs a TON. Canada’s health care politbureau solved the problem with typical leftist common sense…just don’t buy the bloody things in the first place!
Why wouldn’t anyone want this?
There are many cases cited by the Fraser Group that prove from the time a cancer is first suspected until a test can take place to locate and identify it (often 5-7 weeks), the cancer is able to spread beyond a point of treament. What I doubt it is some sinister plot to let people die, I don’t think anyone in America would be OK with that.
As for Tanuki’s point on quality, he has a good point. There has been no dismantling of the Canadian system. What has happened, however, is the rise of a service-and-quality-based black market. The black market for healthcare in Canada is so prevalent that the founder of one of the black market providers was recently elected President of the Canadian Medical Assocaition.
So you could say that Canada has a single-payer system that is now morphing into a partial market-drive system, and the US began with an employer-based system that is now morphing into a largely Government (50%) system.
What an interesting discussion. Amongst others, Randy, Rick, Richard, and Eva are not only rational but factual. Blogger, Chris, and Dan the Man are either blinded by ideology or willfully ignorant of the salient facts. This is both a practical and a moral issue.
First the practical, (rational) considerations: The most unbiased and comprehensive study of health care that I have seen can be found at the W.H.O., (World Health Organization)site. They study and rate health delivery systems in a scientific manner, without the blinders of ideology. The U.S. has ranked in the middle to high 20’s for decades. We are number one however in percent of GNP spent. In other words we arguably spend more and get less than every other western industrialized nation in the world. Last time I looked we ranked 27th in overall quality of health care delivered, with more tan 47 million uninsured and spent over 16% of GNP doing so. The best system in the world covers all it’s citizens and spent around 10% of their GNP. The one thing that every country ahead of us has in common is that they have one form or another of universal/single payer. I have had first hand experience with the health care system ranked as best. It is impressive, cutting edge, and their hospital food is much better too! OK all you right-wing ideologues, take a Valium, breath deep…that’s right it is France.
One is able to chose their doctor, their clinic and their treatment for the most part, no less so than here. Universal/Single p