Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare

[Maple]

15 years and I have yet to find one that likes their system.

 

[Vast LWC]

"...82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

If there were a public option, that 82 percent would be able to keep their coverage, would they not?

What about a public option would stop that 82 percent from being able to keep their current provider? Is it that a public option would be less expensive? Well, it seems to me that if they are so satisfied with their current provider, they would be happy to continue paying for it.

The figure for the unfortunate who have serious illnesses which are not fully covered, and the illegal population is a fraction of the "47 million," and is probably between 8 and 15 million.

What about those who aren't covered who don't have serious illnesses?

If you catch an illness in it's early stages, doesn't that save money, and more importantly, lives, in the long run?

Finally, if we are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on protecting the country from the threat of terrorism, which, after all is said and done, has only actually killed a few thousand people in the last 50 years or so...
then shouldn't we be more than willing to spend much more on what is ultimately responsible for many, many more unecessary deaths: Lack of health insurance?

 

[Vast LWC]

It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years. Again, this is unsustainable, and until everyone understands this

An excellent point.

Even if people are currently satisfied with their health insurance, they will be highly unsatisfied when employers start to find the crushing cost of health insurance to be not worth it anymore.

The firm I work for, for instance, has changed to cheaper, less-effective plans in the past 5 years, and the employees here are much less satisfied with their current plans.

It is not a stretch to imagine that if things continue to go the way they are now, the firm will find it cost-effective to get rid of health insurance altogether, or provide a truly bottom-of-the-barrel plan.

 

[mskafka]

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

“…when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.”
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)”
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth


Enlightened?

Chic, who are the "hard-core" uninsured? What are the characteristics of a hard-core uninsured individual?

Persons under age 65
Number uninsured at the time of interview: 43.6 million (2008)
cdc.gov

I have a feeling that I know what your rebuttal will be, so let me have it.

Long time no see.

Did you see my note to you re: the Kafkaesque " The Monster of Florence,"? By Spezi.

Now, as far as the uninsured.
1. The bogus figure tossed around by your side is conflated with
a) those who are currently eligible for programs in which they have not bothered to enroll,
b) those wealthy enough (over $75K) to purchase their own health insurance
c) the critierion to make the list is to be without healthcare for even a short period during the reporting year, say if you have changed jobs.

The figure for the unfortunate who have serious illnesses which are not fully covered, and the illegal population is a fraction of the "47 million," and is probably between 8 and 15 million. We must continue to provide healthcare for every individual within our borders, as we do currently.

And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system.

For Conservatives, data informs policy. Therefore it is incumbant upon those wishing to make a substantive case for your plan to determine the costs of aiding these two groups, and comparaing that cost to the cost of ObamaCare.

Experience has shown that cost overruns on these healthcare programs is approximately 8 to 10 times the estimates, so the advertized price of $1.4-1.6 trillion is probably $14 to 16 trillion.
"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate...In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's "
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online

My suspicion is that the 5 or 6 suggestions that I have made in the past, and would be willing to review for you, would reduce the costs and maintain the system that "...82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

Based on the above figures, desire for change in the healthcare system is ideological, and not medical nor consumer driven.


Further, the a posteriori evidence of every 'universal healthcare' scheme is that there is a reduction in access, and a rationing of care. (Canada, UK, Massachusetts, Tennessee, For starts.) This alone should obviate any desires on the part of thinking individuals for said program.

Summary: unless you can show the total figure for aiding the chronically uninsured and the illegal population, and indicate the savings that would be the result of destroying a systmem which is clearly (polls) preferred, you have no winning argument outside of the political.

I did see the quote, and I'm still waiting for your response to my question: Do you consider yourself of the proletariat, or do you know what's best for the proletariat?

In response to 1.
a. Yes for whatever reason some people-( either don't have the intelligence,... and I mean that respectfully...are too lazy, don't drive...or whatever-do not take advantage of the options available to them.
b. Over 75K-pre-existing conditions, took out...say an ARM, and are living beyond their means. (I know, that's not your fault)
c. a short time? (1 month, 6 months...how long?)


8-15 million- according to FactCheck.org and the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Statistics on uninsured living in the United States- 79% are native or naturalized U.S. citizens and The remaining 21 percent accounts for both legal and illegal immigrants.

My own math, correct it if it is wrong-with approximately 46 million uninsured (median-between 2006 and 2008 data) that would be roughly 15% of the population.

Although sources vary, I decided to go with the highest number found, (on a conservative website) to estimate the percentage of illegal immigrants in the US-20 million was the estimate, so that is roughly 6% of the population.

According to commonwealthfund.org-the United States spent $5,267 per capita on health care in 2002 (It may have increased or decreased since then). So that would be approximately $242,282,000,000. (Correct me if I'm wrong, as neither math nor statistics have ever been my strengths.)

Hypothetically, let's say that we divide that amount in half-assuming that half of that is paid in full...that's $121,141,000,000 of uncompensated care. And that's not counting the illegal immigrants, or the insured who don't pay their out-of-pocket costs. I know that you know how to divide, so I won't bore you with that any longer. I'm aware that there are many variables, so this is at best a guesstimation. With the system the way that it is, I'm not sure that anyone could get a concrete number.

And we'll go with your number; 8%=roughly $40 billion.



According to this site http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/benefits-insurance-health/306239-1.html-"U.S. hospitals provided $24.9 billion of uncompensated care in 2003"

And this is a quote from H.R. 3200 Sec 246 —
NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. **********************************************************************

On the issue of "aiding the chronically insured-you don't know their situations, and I don't know their situations.

I'm sure that you are aware the Canada and the UK have incorporated public with private in their countries, with mixed reactions. So if they can do it, then why can't we? (http://medicare.ca/main/the-facts/p3s-private-profits-public-pays) ( http://www.bupa.co.uk/) These were picked quickly, so forgive the quality.

I'm assuming that you mean the POSTERIOR evidence- of every 'universal healthcare' scheme is that there is a reduction in access, and a rationing of care. (Canada, UK, Massachusetts, Tennessee, For starts.)-reference (I've heard it, but I'd like to know where you've heard it) TN was a surprise, that is the first that I've heard about TN. Are you referring to tncare, medicare?

And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system. (when? and where did you find it?)


Now as far as how to fund it, I will get back with you.

 

[Vast LWC]

And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system. (when? and where did you find it?)

What's this? When did this happen?

Of course, corporations have been known to make promises like this when threatened with legislation, and then go back on them later, but this is first I'm hearing about this.

 

[mskafka]

And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system. (when? and where did you find it?)

What's this? When did this happen?

Of course, corporations have been known to make promises like this when threatened with legislation, and then go back on them later, but this is first I'm hearing about this.

Who knows? I'm still looking for it.

 

[Meister]

It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years. Again, this is unsustainable, and until everyone understands this

An excellent point.

Even if people are currently satisfied with their health insurance, they will be highly unsatisfied when employers start to find the crushing cost of health insurance to be not worth it anymore.

The firm I work for, for instance, has changed to cheaper, less-effective plans in the past 5 years, and the employees here are much less satisfied with their current plans.

It is not a stretch to imagine that if things continue to go the way they are now, the firm will find it cost-effective to get rid of health insurance altogether, or provide a truly bottom-of-the-barrel plan.

Why is it that you think the only way to fix healthcare is with universal health? There are several ways to tweak the present system to arrive at the final goal for everyone. They have already been laid down in this thread.
Universal healthcare will ultimately push out the private insurance companies through the mandates. Which will leave one choice, and your going to like it...whether you like it or not.
One last note....I feel whatever we end up with when the dust settles, the politicians will have the same insurance as we do. This will be the litmus test on just how good of healthcare we really have.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why is it that you think the only way to fix healthcare is with universal health?

It isn't. That's why the proposed public option is just that, an option.

 

[Toro]

15 years and I have yet to find one that likes their system.

You aren't talking to many Canadians then. Despite the problems, there is an overwhelming consensus that Canadians do not want to have a system like the US.

If a political party in Canada campaigned to fundamentally change Medicare, they would be soundly thumped at the polls. That's why no parties run to change the system.

 

[mskafka]

so I take it that you will no longer need these services - mail, garbage collection, library, school, police and firemen since they are not for profit either?[/QUOTE

No, in some peoples' minds, everything should be for profit. Can you imagine? 911 for profit. If you subscribe, "we will dispatch fire to your house if it catches ablaze". for only $50.00 per month. The cost of a latte a day.

I do my best to be kind, and overlook many of the glaring flaws in your abilty to conduct a logical debate, or discussion, but I must say that you bring to mind the famous quote by Frank Norris:
"...self-centered in opinion, with curious lacunae of astounding ignorance"


Now, in your ken or experience, which of the following are carried out by un-paid volunteers who act in accordance with "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"?
" mail, garbage collection, library, school, police and firemen since they are not for profit either..."

This actually made me giggle. Yes, there are people who still volunteer, but it is not as common as it used to be. As the US becomes more litigious, fewer people are willing to put their lives and livelihoods in jeopardy, and I don't think that I've ever seen a volunteer mail carrier or garbageman. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I've never seen one.

Are you saying: "in your or Ken's experience."? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". (I don't recall, is it Marx or Lenin?) You are like McCarthy reincarnated...I've never seen such an obsession.

I'm not sure what exactly you are asking.

 

[GWV5903]

but it was Truman who ended WW II, get your FACTS straight, leave your emotions at home

Hmm perhaps you should read what I wrote before you correct me. I said:

(Roosevelt) who won it for us.

Not: (Roosevelt) who ended it for us

See the difference there? Take your own advice and get your facts straight. Oh and....

You’re too naive & emotional to debate this with

Once again, the typical Neocon response, when confronted with an actual response to your foolishness (instead of some sycophant agreeing with you)...

you insult your opponent, latch on to some meaningless semantic argument, and imply that they're unintelligent (or "naive" in your case) because they don't see things your way.

So typical. Sigh.

An actual response?? You call this a response?? A response would try to refute the facts, you have nothing factual as to the cost of this, the CBO is closer to reality and we all know there estimate says this will add $1.8 trillion to our deficit over 10 years, can you refute that?

Again, your too emotional and naive, nothing new from the far left, but please keep it up, it will insure the house changes in '10 and one term for your socialist messiah......

 

[Jay Canuck]

the day you can prove that the opinions of 1000 people on a media call list = the overall opinion of all us citizens on a subject I will agree with you.... until then I say you are the one that is wrong.

My guess is that math isn't your strong suit.

Best Estimates: A Guide to Sample Size and Margin of Error | Public Agenda

All you have to do is see how polls have predicted the outcome of an event. These are the Presidential polls just before the election. They are all a national sample of about 1000 people with a sample error of 3%, 19 times out of 20. As you can see here, most of the polls were either within the standard error or within 1% of the standard error.

Poll Average: Barack Obama vs. John McCain 2008

Here is the math on polling. It explains how 1,000 people can be an accurate reflection of a population of 200 million.

http://flightline.highline.edu/hburn/Math 210/Course Docs/Polling.ppt

Do you live in America? Have you ever lived in America?

Just because the polls were close in one political event does not mean they are accurate all the time nor does it mean that certain media groups poll using the same methods....like I said even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
USATODAY.com - Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988

There is a sucker born every minute.

 

[Toro]

Just because the polls were close in one political event does not mean they are accurate all the time nor does it mean that certain media groups poll using the same methods....like I said even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Of course polls are not accurate all the time. However, you are making an implicit assumption that the poll is wrong and that Americans don't like their insurer and have had bad experiences with their insurer. Why else would you question it? The reason why I shared my own experiences is because that polls seems to verify what I have learned after living in America for a long time. You may not care about my experiences but you have not offered anything to counter otherwise other than displaying that you don't understand statistical sampling. What would you think about an American who told a group of Canadians that a Canadian poll concluding that Canadians were generally happy with Medicare was biased and wrong, and that Canadians are in fact really unhappy with Medicare and want to ditch it? It would seem pretty foolish, wouldn't it?

 

[Jay Canuck]

Just because the polls were close in one political event does not mean they are accurate all the time nor does it mean that certain media groups poll using the same methods....like I said even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Of course polls are not accurate all the time. However, you are making an implicit assumption that the poll is wrong and that Americans don't like their insurer and have had bad experiences with their insurer. Why else would you question it? The reason why I shared my own experiences is because that polls seems to verify what I have learned after living in America for a long time. You may not care about my experiences but you have not offered anything to counter otherwise. What would you think about an American who told a group of Canadians that a Canadian poll concluding that Canadians were generally happy with Medicare was biased and wrong, and that Canadians are in fact really unhappy with Medicare and want to ditch it? It would seem pretty foolish, wouldn't it?

"Of course polls are not accurate all the time."

thank you. I made no assumptions - I simply pointed out that fact and that I don't trust polls even the ones that I might agree with. next.

 

[Toro]

Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
USATODAY.com - Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988

There is a sucker born every minute.

You don't understand how this works.

Exit polls are notoriously inaccurate because reporters sit outside polling booths and ask people how they voted as they come out. They are constructed far less rigorously because the statistical sample can be way off.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chic, who are the "hard-core" uninsured? What are the characteristics of a hard-core uninsured individual?

Persons under age 65
Number uninsured at the time of interview: 43.6 million (2008)
cdc.gov

I have a feeling that I know what your rebuttal will be, so let me have it.

Long time no see.

Did you see my note to you re: the Kafkaesque " The Monster of Florence,"? By Spezi.

Now, as far as the uninsured.
1. The bogus figure tossed around by your side is conflated with
a) those who are currently eligible for programs in which they have not bothered to enroll,
b) those wealthy enough (over $75K) to purchase their own health insurance
c) the critierion to make the list is to be without healthcare for even a short period during the reporting year, say if you have changed jobs.

The figure for the unfortunate who have serious illnesses which are not fully covered, and the illegal population is a fraction of the "47 million," and is probably between 8 and 15 million. We must continue to provide healthcare for every individual within our borders, as we do currently.

And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system.

For Conservatives, data informs policy. Therefore it is incumbant upon those wishing to make a substantive case for your plan to determine the costs of aiding these two groups, and comparaing that cost to the cost of ObamaCare.

Experience has shown that cost overruns on these healthcare programs is approximately 8 to 10 times the estimates, so the advertized price of $1.4-1.6 trillion is probably $14 to 16 trillion.
"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate...In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's "
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online

My suspicion is that the 5 or 6 suggestions that I have made in the past, and would be willing to review for you, would reduce the costs and maintain the system that "...82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

Based on the above figures, desire for change in the healthcare system is ideological, and not medical nor consumer driven.


Further, the a posteriori evidence of every 'universal healthcare' scheme is that there is a reduction in access, and a rationing of care. (Canada, UK, Massachusetts, Tennessee, For starts.) This alone should obviate any desires on the part of thinking individuals for said program.

Summary: unless you can show the total figure for aiding the chronically uninsured and the illegal population, and indicate the savings that would be the result of destroying a systmem which is clearly (polls) preferred, you have no winning argument outside of the political.

Here's the problem PC. While the vast majority of Americans are happy with their current healthcare, that will not exist within ten years as prices double again. Employers will not be able to continue carrying the load and this system will collapse. That is not saying that having the government run things would be better.

The biggest problem is that the argument of "it not being broken, so why fix it" is the ideology that will eventually lead to full government control and rationing as the cost surpasses our ability to pay. On top of this, more and more people will be forced out of the system.

Under the current system, if you lose your job and have a pre-existing condition, you can only get coverage through an employer plan, and if you are out of work long enough, then you have a one year wait on those pre-existing conditions. While insurance companies have said they will remove the constraints for those with pre-existing conditions, this is in reality a fallacy, because they will charge such a high premium that coverage will be unaffordable to all but the very few who find themselves in this position.

And here is another problem. What happens to the individual who has insurance through their employer, but becomes sick and then loses their job. Without a steady income due to their being sick, they can't afford Cobra, and even if they can, if the illness is extended, Cobra runs out. Then they are left to lose every asset they have worked for throughout their life before Medicaid will kick in. And for Medicaid to kick in, you have to be dirt poor.

Most people never find themselves in this situation, but for those who do, we make sure that there is no hope or way out for them. There are answers and solutions. The problem is that all we hear is that the current system is fine and everyone is happy with their healthcare now, so why change it? It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years. Again, this is unsustainable, and until everyone understands this, there will be more and more pressure to move toward a single payer government run system.

So if you want to discuss the real problems and how they can be solved, please do. But continuing on with the argument that all is well is not going to hold much longer.

I think that many of the points above require some elucidation.

"a pre-existing condition, you can only get coverage through an employer plan, and if you are out of work long enough, then you have a one year wait on those pre-existing conditions."
The agreement shortens the one year waiting period by one month for each year of prior coverage.

The ObamaCare plans under consideration would be mandated to include the following:
1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

5. to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430).

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending

"...a fallacy, because they will charge such a high premium that coverage will be unaffordable to all but the very few ..."
Above, you see the reason why private healthcare will be unaffordable under ObamaCare. And experience tells you that government cost estimates are generally off by a factor of 8 to 10.


"...It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years."

This is a misconception elevated to reality by the forces that wish nationalized care.
The increases in healthcare are actually decreasing, and the overall costs of the big four of spendable cash, food-fuel-housing-healthcare has remained the same for two and a half generations.

By Betsy McCaughey Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., is a patient advocate, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, and a former Lt. Governor of New York State.
Downgrading Health Care
The administration has warned that soaring health spending threatens the stability of American families and the economy. These doomsday scenarios are untrue. Health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased 10.5 percent in 1970, 13 percent in 1980, and consistently less than 7 percent in each of the last five years, reaching a low of 6.1 percent a year ago. Each year since 1960, food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' expenditures, while housing has taken up a steady share. This has enabled Americans to spend an increasing share of their budgets on another necessity, healthcare. These four necessities together consume the same share of American spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, Americans are increasing the share of their spending that goes to recreation. Moderate income families can be helped to buy health coverage with vouchers, refundable tax credits, or debit cards. That's a low risk, "fix what's broken" approach.
Increases in healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

For purposes of comparison, education:
Tuition at private colleges and universities has increased anywhere from 5% to 13% every year since 1980. "
The Cost of a College Education

And for primary and secondary school:
"Based on statistics from the US Department of Education, the average cost of educating a student in elementary and secondary schools has risen from $6,200 in 1991 to $11,000 in 2005 an increase of 85%. "
US Education Market | Entourage Systems Inc.


"...discuss the real problems and how they can be solved..."
Be glad to.

The following are suggestions that would solve the increased costs problems, and maintain what you agree defines healthcare today: "While the vast majority of Americans are happy with their current healthcare"

1. Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

So my conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!


2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates:

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

 

[Toro]

"Of course polls are not accurate all the time."

thank you. I made no assumptions - I simply pointed out that fact and that I don't trust polls even the ones that I might agree with. next.

But they are accurate most of the time.

As this one is.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
USATODAY.com - Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988

There is a sucker born every minute.

You don't understand how this works.

Exit polls are notoriously inaccurate because reporters sit outside polling booths and ask people how they voted as they come out. They are constructed far less rigorously because the statistical sample can be way off.

I understand quite perfectly..... I proved my point.
next.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?

Please do us all a favor and make the correct distinction between "health care" and "health insurance". All Americans have access to "health care" by law. "Health insurance" is something else entirely.