Health care reform, necessary?

[Wry Catcher]

Reforming the way health care is provided in our nation has been an issue for a century.


The article below is from "Business Week" and provides an historic background for debate.



JANUARY 10, 2005

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK 2005 -- LIFE SCIENCES

Commentary: Health Care: More Money, Less Care
Ever higher outlays aren't getting the U.S. a better health-care system, but the pols aren't doing much to redress this miserable equation


This is what passes for good news in health care: U.S. spending will increase by only 9% to 10% in 2005, about the same rate as last year, according to UBS Securities (UBS ). That's still three times the rate of inflation, but at least it's less than the gains the nation saw in the first two years of this century, when costs rose by 12% to 13% a year.

All told, the U.S. will probably spend an estimated $1.9 trillion on health care in 2005, $100 billion more than the prior year. That's 15.7% of the gross domestic product. Despite such mammoth sums, hospitals will continue to struggle to stay solvent, employers will continue to face higher insurance premiums, employees will continue to shoulder a higher percentage of those premiums, and insurers -- well, insurers will continue to do very well, thank you, because they get to pass on their higher costs to the policy holders. Though not, of course, to the 45 million people who are uninsured -- 15.6% of the population.

At some point, and probably in the not-too-distant future, this level of spending will almost certainly become unsustainable. Expensive new drugs and medical technologies, a growing number of uninsured, and an aging, overweight population virtually guarantee cost increases will climb back to the 12% to 13% range in a few years. By 2010, UBS Securities estimates that health care will consume 17.4% of the GDP. "In my view, the pressure is not off costs at all," says William McGeever, a UBS health-care analyst. "I see nothing on the horizon that will moderate increases."

All of this might be O.K. if we were getting maximum bang for all those bucks, but we're not. Other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage, spend less of their GDP on health care -- 8% to 10%. Yet they rank well above the U.S. in average life expectancy and infant mortality rate, standard measures of a nation's health. The U.S. ranks in the bottom quartile of all industrialized nations on those two measures.

Nor does the U.S. do well on more specific quality measures. In a study of a broad range of procedures in five highly industrialized nations, released last spring in the well-regarded journal Health Affairs, researchers determined that the extra spending on health care in the U.S. is "not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery." That conclusion was backed up by a study released in December by Veteran's Administration researchers: They found that only 51% of patients nationwide receive med- ically recommended care for their conditions. So much for the oft-heard claim that the U.S. has the best medical system in the world.

Despite this dire situation, there are no serious proposals in Washington to redress the miserable cost/quality equation. President George W. Bush's main health-care reform initiative, the introduction of tax credits for Health Savings Accounts, is likely only to siphon off healthy adults from existing insurance plans, making it harder to offset the costs of treating the sick. At the same time, the shift to high-deductible policies by many employers is likely to cause some consumers to delay health care until their conditions become serious -- and more expensive to treat.

If change is going to come, it needs to be driven by the companies now picking up the nation's health-insurance tab, as well as their beleaguered employees. The annual Towers Perrin Health Care Cost Survey predicts that employers can expect, on average, an 8% increase in health-care costs in 2005, to an annual rate of $7,761 per employee. Those employees will see their share of insurance premiums increase by an average of 14%, while benefits will be reduced by 2%.

A Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that the cost of job-based health coverage has risen 59% since 2000, while the percentage of U.S. workers who receive health benefits through their jobs has dropped from 65% to 61%. Paying more, getting less. Isn't it about time that policymakers -- and the people who vote for them -- come up with a better way?

So, does anyone on this message board have a better idea? I've yet to read one on this message board, or hear one from Senate or House Republicans. "Obamacare" as many of you characterize current Congressional and White House efforts to pass a bill recieve only negative comments from many - but never do the negative nellies / neds ever acklnowledge the problems outliined above, or suggest real solutions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Historical evidence sure seems to quite the conservatives.

 

[andy753]

Yes, we need reform. A little, a lot, I'm not sure. I know I have a customer that I see on a weekly basis that pays $930 a month for health insurance for his wife and himself. Crazy. I work with a guy that got his $28,000 broken leg bill wiped away with a couple of phone calls. And he refuses to buy insurance, because in his mind, why buy it when he can get it all for free. My premiums go up because of people like this.

My last story is about a friend whose father served in Vietnam. Lost his arm. For reasons unknown, his dad has to sell his house to pay for medical bills due to some complications on his lost arm. (more to it than a missing limb) He worked his whole life to buy that house, now it's going to be gone. I have no idea why it's not covered by the government/military. And yes, I know the government/military is paid by tax payers like myself. Then I work with a jack-ass who gets his bills paid for with a few 10 minute phone calls.

YES, WE NEED A LITTLE CHANGE. Don't tell me you think the systems doesn't need a little/lot of change. I don't have the answers, that's why I just sit around and complain. hahaha

 

[Christopher]

Reforming the way health care is provided in our nation has been an issue for a century.


The article below is from "Business Week" and provides an historic background for debate.



JANUARY 10, 2005

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK 2005 -- LIFE SCIENCES

Commentary: Health Care: More Money, Less Care
Ever higher outlays aren't getting the U.S. a better health-care system, but the pols aren't doing much to redress this miserable equation


This is what passes for good news in health care: U.S. spending will increase by only 9% to 10% in 2005, about the same rate as last year, according to UBS Securities (UBS ). That's still three times the rate of inflation, but at least it's less than the gains the nation saw in the first two years of this century, when costs rose by 12% to 13% a year.

All told, the U.S. will probably spend an estimated $1.9 trillion on health care in 2005, $100 billion more than the prior year. That's 15.7% of the gross domestic product. Despite such mammoth sums, hospitals will continue to struggle to stay solvent, employers will continue to face higher insurance premiums, employees will continue to shoulder a higher percentage of those premiums, and insurers -- well, insurers will continue to do very well, thank you, because they get to pass on their higher costs to the policy holders. Though not, of course, to the 45 million people who are uninsured -- 15.6% of the population.

At some point, and probably in the not-too-distant future, this level of spending will almost certainly become unsustainable. Expensive new drugs and medical technologies, a growing number of uninsured, and an aging, overweight population virtually guarantee cost increases will climb back to the 12% to 13% range in a few years. By 2010, UBS Securities estimates that health care will consume 17.4% of the GDP. "In my view, the pressure is not off costs at all," says William McGeever, a UBS health-care analyst. "I see nothing on the horizon that will moderate increases."

All of this might be O.K. if we were getting maximum bang for all those bucks, but we're not. Other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage, spend less of their GDP on health care -- 8% to 10%. Yet they rank well above the U.S. in average life expectancy and infant mortality rate, standard measures of a nation's health. The U.S. ranks in the bottom quartile of all industrialized nations on those two measures.

Nor does the U.S. do well on more specific quality measures. In a study of a broad range of procedures in five highly industrialized nations, released last spring in the well-regarded journal Health Affairs, researchers determined that the extra spending on health care in the U.S. is "not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery." That conclusion was backed up by a study released in December by Veteran's Administration researchers: They found that only 51% of patients nationwide receive med- ically recommended care for their conditions. So much for the oft-heard claim that the U.S. has the best medical system in the world.

Despite this dire situation, there are no serious proposals in Washington to redress the miserable cost/quality equation. President George W. Bush's main health-care reform initiative, the introduction of tax credits for Health Savings Accounts, is likely only to siphon off healthy adults from existing insurance plans, making it harder to offset the costs of treating the sick. At the same time, the shift to high-deductible policies by many employers is likely to cause some consumers to delay health care until their conditions become serious -- and more expensive to treat.

If change is going to come, it needs to be driven by the companies now picking up the nation's health-insurance tab, as well as their beleaguered employees. The annual Towers Perrin Health Care Cost Survey predicts that employers can expect, on average, an 8% increase in health-care costs in 2005, to an annual rate of $7,761 per employee. Those employees will see their share of insurance premiums increase by an average of 14%, while benefits will be reduced by 2%.

A Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that the cost of job-based health coverage has risen 59% since 2000, while the percentage of U.S. workers who receive health benefits through their jobs has dropped from 65% to 61%. Paying more, getting less. Isn't it about time that policymakers -- and the people who vote for them -- come up with a better way?

So, does anyone on this message board have a better idea? I've yet to read one on this message board, or hear one from Senate or House Republicans. "Obamacare" as many of you characterize current Congressional and White House efforts to pass a bill recieve only negative comments from many - but never do the negative nellies / neds ever acklnowledge the problems outliined above, or suggest real solutions.

The article does not address the root causes of the problems. That IS the problem. It is assumed that our longevity and other statistics are a complete result of the money we spend on health care. Where is the credible study which shows this? I have been asking for it for some time and not one person on this board has provided it. If I need to give you a link to the thread I can.

How are we to agree on what the correct solution to the problems mentioned in the article are if we do not even understand what has really caused these problems?

Also, the article mentions that the health care spending is unsustainable, which I agree. How about we also agree that government spending is unsustainable and realize we need to stop looking for more government money to fix our problems?

 

[Christopher]

Historical evidence sure seems to quite the conservatives.

It is easy to portray events from history differently when there is no credible analysis given behind the reasons why things happened in history. Interpretation of what the evidence really means is necessary to find the truth.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Historical evidence sure seems to quite the conservatives.

It is easy to portray events from history differently when there is no credible analysis given behind the reasons why things happened in history. Interpretation of what the evidence really means is necessary to find the truth.

History provides, among other things, perspective. Consider if you will T. Roosevelt & The Progressive Party Platform of 1912:
Minor/Third Party Platforms: Progressive Party Platform of 1912

Notice the call for National Health Care nearly 100 years ago, and other reforms such as campaign finance reform.
Now, as to your argument that there is "no credible analysis given behind the reasons for why things happened in history" I must say that is simply not true. Cause and effect do require critical analysis, but much has been done, and though absolute truth may not be known, events have been recored and sufficient evidence exists to make the certainty of the evidence nearly absolute.

 

[Christopher]

Historical evidence sure seems to quite the conservatives.

It is easy to portray events from history differently when there is no credible analysis given behind the reasons why things happened in history. Interpretation of what the evidence really means is necessary to find the truth.

History provides, among other things, perspective. Consider if you will T. Roosevelt & The Progressive Party Platform of 1912:
Minor/Third Party Platforms: Progressive Party Platform of 1912

Notice the call for National Health Care nearly 100 years ago, and other reforms such as campaign finance reform.
Now, as to your argument that there is "no credible analysis given behind the reasons for why things happened in history" I must say that is simply not true. Cause and effect do require critical analysis, but much has been done, and though absolute truth may not be known, events have been recored and sufficient evidence exists to make the certainty of the evidence nearly absolute.

Then I'm sure you can provide a link to one of these analyses. I will be waiting.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Everybody pretty much agrees on Health Care Reform, but not THIS type of Reform.. Not this Crappy Bill We can't even pay for.

 

[Luissa]

Of course it needs to be reformed, and it needs to start by setting prices for procedures. You shouldn't be able to charge one price at a hospital and another somewhere else.

 

[PeterS]

Also, the article mentions that the health care spending is unsustainable, which I agree. How about we also agree that government spending is unsustainable and realize we need to stop looking for more government money to fix our problems?

My sons friend and co-worker just died from pneumonia. He had been sick for several days and when he didn't return calls nor answer his door the police were called and he was found unconscious. He spent two weeks in the county hospital before dying leaving behind a tab for the taxpayers of over $80K. Like my son his friend and co-worker was a contract employee and therefore had no health insurance. Had he gone to the doctor when he first gotten sick the bronchial infection would have been diagnosed and treated for a fraction of what it cost after he was hospitalized...and yet the government spending for that treatment is unsustainable, correct?

What people do not seem to understand is that what is unsustainable is our approach to health-care in this country. If the money for health care is not going to come from wages and benefits then it WILL come from the government...one way or the other. The question is whether we want to pay a little or a lot. Personally I would rather pay a little but it seems conservative fear of government predicates we all pay a lot...

 

[PeterS]

Everybody pretty much agrees on Health Care Reform, but not THIS type of Reform.. Not this Crappy Bill We can't even pay for.

Health care costs are projected to increase by 2.4 trillion over the course of the bill. If we cannot afford the 250B the bill would cost how is it we can afford the 2.4T increase in health care?

 

[Tom Clancy]

Everybody pretty much agrees on Health Care Reform, but not THIS type of Reform.. Not this Crappy Bill We can't even pay for.

Health care costs are projected to increase by 2.4 trillion over the course of the bill. If we cannot afford the 250B the bill would cost how is it we can afford the 2.4T increase in health care?

Who said we could afford that?

Not me.

 

[Christopher]

Also, the article mentions that the health care spending is unsustainable, which I agree. How about we also agree that government spending is unsustainable and realize we need to stop looking for more government money to fix our problems?

My sons friend and co-worker just died from pneumonia. He had been sick for several days and when he didn't return calls nor answer his door the police were called and he was found unconscious. He spent two weeks in the county hospital before dying leaving behind a tab for the taxpayers of over $80K. Like my son his friend and co-worker was a contract employee and therefore had no health insurance. Had he gone to the doctor when he first gotten sick the bronchial infection would have been diagnosed and treated for a fraction of what it cost after he was hospitalized...and yet the government spending for that treatment is unsustainable, correct?

What people do not seem to understand is that what is unsustainable is our approach to health-care in this country. If the money for health care is not going to come from wages and benefits then it WILL come from the government...one way or the other. The question is whether we want to pay a little or a lot. Personally I would rather pay a little but it seems conservative fear of government predicates we all pay a lot...

First of all, I am sorry for you son's friend. I have a brother-in-law who is battling leukemia right now, no insurance. He will likely need a bone marrow transplant. So, yes I understand we pay for that.

What we need to do is implement policies which will actually bring costs down and not just shift costs around. To do that, we need to understand what the root causes are of our increases in health care costs. It was determined by the CBO that about one-half of all increases over the last few decades was a result of the development of new medical technology. Development of new technology costs money and someone has to pay for it. I think we need to be smarter about implementation of technology. Just consider how long it takes for the FDA to approve a new drug, yet Europe can adopt it quickly. Too much government involvement is what is wrong with our country, yet we want more?

 

[PeterS]

Also, the article mentions that the health care spending is unsustainable, which I agree. How about we also agree that government spending is unsustainable and realize we need to stop looking for more government money to fix our problems?

My sons friend and co-worker just died from pneumonia. He had been sick for several days and when he didn't return calls nor answer his door the police were called and he was found unconscious. He spent two weeks in the county hospital before dying leaving behind a tab for the taxpayers of over $80K. Like my son his friend and co-worker was a contract employee and therefore had no health insurance. Had he gone to the doctor when he first gotten sick the bronchial infection would have been diagnosed and treated for a fraction of what it cost after he was hospitalized...and yet the government spending for that treatment is unsustainable, correct?

What people do not seem to understand is that what is unsustainable is our approach to health-care in this country. If the money for health care is not going to come from wages and benefits then it WILL come from the government...one way or the other. The question is whether we want to pay a little or a lot. Personally I would rather pay a little but it seems conservative fear of government predicates we all pay a lot...

First of all, I am sorry for you son's friend. I have a brother-in-law who is battling leukemia right now, no insurance. He will likely need a bone marrow transplant. So, yes I understand we pay for that.

What we need to do is implement policies which will actually bring costs down and not just shift costs around. To do that, we need to understand what the root causes are of our increases in health care costs. It was determined by the CBO that about one-half of all increases over the last few decades was a result of the development of new medical technology. Development of new technology costs money and someone has to pay for it. I think we need to be smarter about implementation of technology. Just consider how long it takes for the FDA to approve a new drug, yet Europe can adopt it quickly. Too much government involvement is what is wrong with our country, yet we want more?

First, of all Europe has complete government involvement so don't cite their success then wag your finger at more government involvement here. Second, even if new technology were responsible for half it doesn't address the other half. Heath care is an item of infinite demand and therefore in constant demand-push plus the price isn't negotiated by the payer. Prices can't come down because, as long as someone pays the bill, there exists no pressure to lower them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Everybody pretty much agrees on Health Care Reform, but not THIS type of Reform.. Not this Crappy Bill We can't even pay for.

Do you really understand the bill (since one doesn't exist yet) or have you adopted the propaganda of the vested interests who oppose reform?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is easy to portray events from history differently when there is no credible analysis given behind the reasons why things happened in history. Interpretation of what the evidence really means is necessary to find the truth.

History provides, among other things, perspective. Consider if you will T. Roosevelt & The Progressive Party Platform of 1912:
Minor/Third Party Platforms: Progressive Party Platform of 1912

Notice the call for National Health Care nearly 100 years ago, and other reforms such as campaign finance reform.
Now, as to your argument that there is "no credible analysis given behind the reasons for why things happened in history" I must say that is simply not true. Cause and effect do require critical analysis, but much has been done, and though absolute truth may not be known, events have been recored and sufficient evidence exists to make the certainty of the evidence nearly absolute.

Then I'm sure you can provide a link to one of these analyses. I will be waiting.

Are you kidding? Sure, start at the public library and go to the section on biographies. They are usually a very good source of historical information and most are well annotated, linking to primary sources (letters, documents and such).

PBS- Healthcare Crisis: Healthcare Timeline
(a simple historical matrix)

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program
(A doctor organization discussing national health cares history in our nation)

EH.Net Encyclopedia: Health Insurance in the United States
(an academic historical analysis

Notice the tone of these links, none are emotional, though number two above is clearly partisan in favor of national health insurance. And then think about the 'arguments' presented by McConnell/Boehner/Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity/et al of the RW, all are fear and ideologically based. It's really sad that many in our nation choose to listen to the sound bite, the fear mongering and the propaganda and are to lazy to spent the time researching issues.

 

[Meister]

Most people are in favor of healthcare reform, reform which wil bring down costs of service and costs of premiums, but not quality of care they are receiving.
The government has a track record of overcharges, and fraud which amounts into the billions. Most Americans see this and are very wary of cutting a check in the amount of 1/6 of our GDP. Most Americans are aware that the policians would like to see a total 1 payer system which the president in the past has indicated he is in favor of. Barry stated that itwould take 20 or so years to get to that point. There is a lot of trust issue that America has with government.
There can be new regulations, and mandates made to the private sector which could correct the issues with the current healthcare system. There could be tax credits, and medical savings accounts set up to help attain a sustainable healthcare bill. The government isn't the only solution. But it can be part of the cure to the debacle.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most people are in favor of healthcare reform, reform which wil bring down costs of service and costs of premiums, but not quality of care they are receiving.
The government has a track record of overcharges, and fraud which amounts into the billions. Most Americans see this and are very wary of cutting a check in the amount of 1/6 of our GDP. Most Americans are aware that the policians would like to see a total 1 payer system which the president in the past has indicated he is in favor of. Barry stated that itwould take 20 or so years to get to that point. There is a lot of trust issue that America has with government.
There can be new regulations, and mandates made to the private sector which could correct the issues with the current healthcare system. There could be tax credits, and medical savings accounts set up to help attain a sustainable healthcare bill. The government isn't the only solution. But it can be part of the cure to the debacle.

Explain to me how a for profit health care system is better than a non-profit health care system.
Explain to me how and why a hospital has one billing clerk for each patient, but not one nurse for every patient (I don't know if this is true, but it is a point made in one of the links I provided, which, I suspect you didn't peruse).
It is clear to me that the Republican establishment cares little for the American people, and that federal elected officials of both parties care first and foremost about their own jobs and will do whatever best ensures their reelection.
The only way to fix the systemic problems of our nation is to ensure no one in a postion to pass legislation has any movtivation to vote against the greatest good for the greatest number of our people.
Complete, total and absolute laws need to be passed prohibiting campaign donations, or promises to elected officials, from special interests. Total transparency of lobbying must be required and any violation of such law should be punished by imprisonment, forfiture of all pay and benfits and a prohibition of any future employment as an elected or appointed offical of government (local, state or federal).
Otherwise, our government by the people will no longer exist. See David Broder's article (linked) as why is may already be dead.
David S. Broder - In rejecting a fiscal commission, senators betray the nation - washingtonpost.com

 

[Meister]

Most people are in favor of healthcare reform, reform which wil bring down costs of service and costs of premiums, but not quality of care they are receiving.
The government has a track record of overcharges, and fraud which amounts into the billions. Most Americans see this and are very wary of cutting a check in the amount of 1/6 of our GDP. Most Americans are aware that the policians would like to see a total 1 payer system which the president in the past has indicated he is in favor of. Barry stated that itwould take 20 or so years to get to that point. There is a lot of trust issue that America has with government.
There can be new regulations, and mandates made to the private sector which could correct the issues with the current healthcare system. There could be tax credits, and medical savings accounts set up to help attain a sustainable healthcare bill. The government isn't the only solution. But it can be part of the cure to the debacle.

Explain to me how a for profit health care system is better than a non-profit health care system.
Explain to me how and why a hospital has one billing clerk for each patient, but not one nurse for every patient (I don't know if this is true, but it is a point made in one of the links I provided, which, I suspect you didn't peruse).
It is clear to me that the Republican establishment cares little for the American people, and that federal elected officials of both parties care first and foremost about their own jobs and will do whatever best ensures their reelection.
The only way to fix the systemic problems of our nation is to ensure no one in a postion to pass legislation has any movtivation to vote against the greatest good for the greatest number of our people.
Complete, total and absolute laws need to be passed prohibiting campaign donations, or promises to elected officials, from special interests. Total transparency of lobbying must be required and any violation of such law should be punished by imprisonment, forfiture of all pay and benfits and a prohibition of any future employment as an elected or appointed offical of government (local, state or federal).
Otherwise, our government by the people will no longer exist. See David Broder's article (linked) as why is may already be dead.
David S. Broder - In rejecting a fiscal commission, senators betray the nation - washingtonpost.com

seems you have been reading the wrong links, wry. Come back to me when you really have a link other than left wing bias prpoganda, and maybe bring your own your opinion, like I did with you. Maybe address what i stated. Until then, I stand by my post.

 

[Subhumus]

There is a big difference between health care reform as opposed to taking over the health care industry. Why can't government do it's job and just GOVERN the health care industry? Or how about this:

Abolish the notion of Insurance. It's all just a scam that the government wants in on just like they did with the auto industry. Watch the medical industries prices plummet.

You see, the government stopped being a GOVERNment a long time ago. Right about the time they decided being corporate financiers and market controllers was a much better smoke screen for special interest politics.

The government isn't supposed to completely control anything. They are supposed to LIMIT input, process & output via democratically determined representation by and of the people they are supposed to be SERVING.

Health care reform is in NO way necessary. The system is fine. The problem is that no one is GOVERNING the damn thing.