Want To See What National Healthcare Will Look Like?

[Vel]

You don't need to look any farther than Tennessee. It was a disaster. It's amazing that anyone can't see what happened in one state and realize that it would be an even worse nightmare to try this nation wide.
****************************************************

July 22, 2009
Lessons For Health Care Reform
By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe
Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.
The genesis of TennCare has many parallels to the situation in which we find ourselves today. It was a public option plan designed to save money and expand coverage. In the early 1990s, Tennessee was facing rising costs in its Medicaid program. TennCare was designed to replace Mediaid with managed care and use the promised savings to expand coverage. By 1998, TennCare swelled to cover 1.2 million people. Private business dropped coverage for employees and forced them onto state rolls. By 2002 enrollment had swelled to 1.4 million people and forced Tennessee's Governor to raise taxes and ultimately propose an entirely new state income tax to cover the unforeseen costs. Governor Bredesen was ultimately forced to dramatically restructure a program he has since called "a disaster". By 2006 Bredesen had disenrolled nearly 200,000 people and slashed benefits.





RealClearPolitics - Lessons For Health Care Reform

 

[Zoom-boing]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vel6377 again.

Hey let's deluge the white house and congress with this story. Can't hurt.

 

[Vel]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vel6377 again.

Hey let's deluge the white house and congress with this story. Can't hurt.

I just don't understand WHY they can't look at Tenncare and see the future. And if some of the people supporting NHC had ever dealt with the layers of bureaucracy that had to be waded through, they'd tell Obama where he could shove his public option. My mom has COPD and was considered "uninsurable" by regular insurance companies once there was a "public" option available. The worst thing anyone could say was, " You need to call the Tenncare office. " Average phone wait was.. not kidding.. 3 HOURS.

 

[Terry]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vel6377 again.

Hey let's deluge the white house and congress with this story. Can't hurt.

I just don't understand WHY they can't look at Tenncare and see the future. And if some of the people supporting NHC had ever dealt with the layers of bureaucracy that had to be waded through, they'd tell Obama where he could shove his public option. My mom has COPD and was considered "uninsurable" by regular insurance companies once there was a "public" option available. The worst thing anyone could say was, " You need to call the Tenncare office. " Average phone wait was.. not kidding.. 3 HOURS.

Perhaps Obama has. I mean he and his Cabinet (czars) should know this and if not they idiots. Are they idiots or do they know what they want to do to this country so that they can re-build one they want. Just saying makes you wonder.

 

[Vel]

Hey let's deluge the white house and congress with this story. Can't hurt.

I just don't understand WHY they can't look at Tenncare and see the future. And if some of the people supporting NHC had ever dealt with the layers of bureaucracy that had to be waded through, they'd tell Obama where he could shove his public option. My mom has COPD and was considered "uninsurable" by regular insurance companies once there was a "public" option available. The worst thing anyone could say was, " You need to call the Tenncare office. " Average phone wait was.. not kidding.. 3 HOURS.

Perhaps Obama has. I mean he and his Cabinet (czars) should know this and if not they idiots. Are they idiots or do they know what they want to do to this country so that they can re-build one they want. Just saying makes you wonder.

Good question. I almost hope it's the latter because if they're truly that stupid, it's a long time til January 20, 2013.

 

[Terry]

I got this in an email and had to share:

TOP TEN INDICATORS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS CHANGED TO THE OBAMA
GOVERNMENT 'CHEAPER' HEALTH CARE PLAN:


(10) Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.

(9) Directions to your doctor's office include "Turn off the paved road and take a left when youenter the trailer park."

(8) The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.

(7) The only proctologist in the plan is "Gus" from Roto-Rooter.

(6) The only item listed under Preventive Care Coverage is "an apple aday..."

(5) Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave toGoodwill last month.

(4) "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges,"is not a typographical error.

(3) The only expense covered 100% is "embalming."

(2) Your Prozac comes in different colors with little M's on them.

AND THE NUMBER ONE SIGN YOU'VE JOINED THE GOV'T HEALTH CARE PLAN:

(1) You ask for Viagra and they give you a Popsicle stick and Duct Tape.

 

[KittenKoder]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vel6377 again.

Hey let's deluge the white house and congress with this story. Can't hurt.

I just don't understand WHY they can't look at Tenncare and see the future. And if some of the people supporting NHC had ever dealt with the layers of bureaucracy that had to be waded through, they'd tell Obama where he could shove his public option. My mom has COPD and was considered "uninsurable" by regular insurance companies once there was a "public" option available. The worst thing anyone could say was, " You need to call the Tenncare office. " Average phone wait was.. not kidding.. 3 HOURS.

Simple answer, they don't care. They are not trying to offer a system that actually works, just one that will give them more control of more industry.

 

[auditor0007]

You don't need to look any farther than Tennessee. It was a disaster. It's amazing that anyone can't see what happened in one state and realize that it would be an even worse nightmare to try this nation wide.
****************************************************

July 22, 2009
Lessons For Health Care Reform
By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe
Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.
The genesis of TennCare has many parallels to the situation in which we find ourselves today. It was a public option plan designed to save money and expand coverage. In the early 1990s, Tennessee was facing rising costs in its Medicaid program. TennCare was designed to replace Mediaid with managed care and use the promised savings to expand coverage. By 1998, TennCare swelled to cover 1.2 million people. Private business dropped coverage for employees and forced them onto state rolls. By 2002 enrollment had swelled to 1.4 million people and forced Tennessee's Governor to raise taxes and ultimately propose an entirely new state income tax to cover the unforeseen costs. Governor Bredesen was ultimately forced to dramatically restructure a program he has since called "a disaster". By 2006 Bredesen had disenrolled nearly 200,000 people and slashed benefits.





RealClearPolitics - Lessons For Health Care Reform

Programs such as this become a problem because they are set up to cover those who are uninsured without figuring out where the funds will come from. And since most of the people in such a program do not pay for the program, the program is grossly underfunded.

Any type of one payer system must include everyone, not just the uninsurable. How in the world does it make sense to only cover those who don't qualify or can't afford to pay in the first place? A one payer system could work very well, but not if it is a bandaid to cover those who won't or can't pay. So what happens is that this type of program gets bogged down and can't fund itself, and it becomes a disaster.

In a one payer system, everyone must contribute. It is the only way that it can work. However, if everyone is part of the system, and everyone is contributing, then the system can work effectively. So your example is not a good one unless you are assuming, which may be correct, that the currently proposed public option would be completely underfunded from the get go and that those using the public option would not be paying a reasonable amount toward the system.

 

[Chris]

We already have national healthcare.

It's called Medicare and the emergency room.

 

[Vel]

You don't need to look any farther than Tennessee. It was a disaster. It's amazing that anyone can't see what happened in one state and realize that it would be an even worse nightmare to try this nation wide.
****************************************************

July 22, 2009
Lessons For Health Care Reform
By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe
Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.
The genesis of TennCare has many parallels to the situation in which we find ourselves today. It was a public option plan designed to save money and expand coverage. In the early 1990s, Tennessee was facing rising costs in its Medicaid program. TennCare was designed to replace Mediaid with managed care and use the promised savings to expand coverage. By 1998, TennCare swelled to cover 1.2 million people. Private business dropped coverage for employees and forced them onto state rolls. By 2002 enrollment had swelled to 1.4 million people and forced Tennessee's Governor to raise taxes and ultimately propose an entirely new state income tax to cover the unforeseen costs. Governor Bredesen was ultimately forced to dramatically restructure a program he has since called "a disaster". By 2006 Bredesen had disenrolled nearly 200,000 people and slashed benefits.





RealClearPolitics - Lessons For Health Care Reform

Programs such as this become a problem because they are set up to cover those who are uninsured without figuring out where the funds will come from. And since most of the people in such a program do not pay for the program, the program is grossly underfunded.

Any type of one payer system must include everyone, not just the uninsurable. How in the world does it make sense to only cover those who don't qualify or can't afford to pay in the first place? A one payer system could work very well, but not if it is a bandaid to cover those who won't or can't pay. So what happens is that this type of program gets bogged down and can't fund itself, and it becomes a disaster.

In a one payer system, everyone must contribute. It is the only way that it can work. However, if everyone is part of the system, and everyone is contributing, then the system can work effectively. So your example is not a good one unless you are assuming, which may be correct, that the currently proposed public option would be completely underfunded from the get go and that those using the public option would not be paying a reasonable amount toward the system.

TennCare is almost undistinguishable from the health care system currently in the House. Perhaps I misunderstood your post but you seem to be under the assumption that HR3200 would put EVERYONE on the public option immediately. It wouldn't. It would function just as TennCare did. It would also fail as TennCare did.

 

[Zoom-boing]

TennCare is almost undistinguishable from the health care system currently in the House. Perhaps I misunderstood your post but you seem to be under the assumption that HR3200 would put EVERYONE on the public option immediately. It wouldn't. It would function just as TennCare did. It would also fail as TennCare did.

How long would this plan be sustainable until it collapsed? Long enough until the private companies couldn't compete and went away, leaving just the public option?

 

[auditor0007]

You don't need to look any farther than Tennessee. It was a disaster. It's amazing that anyone can't see what happened in one state and realize that it would be an even worse nightmare to try this nation wide.
****************************************************

July 22, 2009
Lessons For Health Care Reform
By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe
Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.
The genesis of TennCare has many parallels to the situation in which we find ourselves today. It was a public option plan designed to save money and expand coverage. In the early 1990s, Tennessee was facing rising costs in its Medicaid program. TennCare was designed to replace Mediaid with managed care and use the promised savings to expand coverage. By 1998, TennCare swelled to cover 1.2 million people. Private business dropped coverage for employees and forced them onto state rolls. By 2002 enrollment had swelled to 1.4 million people and forced Tennessee's Governor to raise taxes and ultimately propose an entirely new state income tax to cover the unforeseen costs. Governor Bredesen was ultimately forced to dramatically restructure a program he has since called "a disaster". By 2006 Bredesen had disenrolled nearly 200,000 people and slashed benefits.





RealClearPolitics - Lessons For Health Care Reform

Programs such as this become a problem because they are set up to cover those who are uninsured without figuring out where the funds will come from. And since most of the people in such a program do not pay for the program, the program is grossly underfunded.

Any type of one payer system must include everyone, not just the uninsurable. How in the world does it make sense to only cover those who don't qualify or can't afford to pay in the first place? A one payer system could work very well, but not if it is a bandaid to cover those who won't or can't pay. So what happens is that this type of program gets bogged down and can't fund itself, and it becomes a disaster.

In a one payer system, everyone must contribute. It is the only way that it can work. However, if everyone is part of the system, and everyone is contributing, then the system can work effectively. So your example is not a good one unless you are assuming, which may be correct, that the currently proposed public option would be completely underfunded from the get go and that those using the public option would not be paying a reasonable amount toward the system.

TennCare is almost undistinguishable from the health care system currently in the House. Perhaps I misunderstood your post but you seem to be under the assumption that HR3200 would put EVERYONE on the public option immediately. It wouldn't. It would function just as TennCare did. It would also fail as TennCare did.

No I am not under the assumption that everyone would be put on the public plan. What I am saying is that programs such as TennCare are paid for, in the most part, from tax dollars that come from those who do not use the program. In order for such a program to be effective and solvent, the majority of funding must come from those using the program which would happen in great part as those who choose to use the public option will pay through employer deductions (the 8% of payroll levy) and premiums paid by the users of the program.

If however, the beneficiaries of the public option are not paying and the only ones paying are those who are already insured through private insurance, then of course the funding will not be there and it will turn into one big disaster.

As a comparison, we know that Medicare is completely underfunded. The biggest problem with Medicare is not that it doesn't work or that its costs are too high. The problem is that those on Medicare are the biggest users of healthcare. As we get older, we use it more, and for a great many, the cost of healthcare in the last year of life is over half of all healthcare spending for those individuals. Yet, we are only paying a payroll tax of 2.8 percent to cover the cost of this. On top of this, the cost of healthcare has doubled in real dollars in the last thirty years, but we have not increased funding, so of course Medicare is underfunded. With private insurance, everyone was forced to pay the increases as the price of healthcare doubled. It was either pay or lose coverage. However, when it came to Medicare, we tried to continue funding it without any significant increases in revenue while the costs doubled.

Now here is the funny thing. While everyone bitches about not wanting to pay more into Medicare as healthcare costs continue to rise, because that would mean paying more taxes, where is the screaming about paying double for private health insurance? That is not a tax increase, but it certainly is taking away from everyone's disposable income. But that is a hidden cost for most as most do not pay for their own health insurance directly. Since employers have covered the bulk of those increases, wages have become stagnant and in many cases decreased in real dollars, but we don't look at that as a tax increase?

Whatever your's or anyone's argument may be, the fact is that so called competition in the free market of health insurance has helped double the cost of healthcare when the argument has always been that the free market and competition should reduce costs. Well, in healthcare, the opposite has happened, and the free market has been a disaster for all of us when it comes to healthcare.

I will agree with one argument however, and that is the fact that healthcare has not been able to truly operate in a free market environment. The fact is that health insurance should be just that, insurance against catostrophic illness or injury. The day to day health spending should not be covered by insurance as that has prevented any true competition from taking place.

But getting back to the original issue, the main reason we are now faced with moving toward a public option is that nobody has made an attempt to correct the problems with our current system. It has been broken for such a long time and all we ever hear is how great it is. Well it is not great. We pay way too much, and that is only going to get worse if nothing is done. On top of that, we have millions of people who cannot even purchase adequate health insurance because of the way this system is set up, and all we hear are those like you who who continue to defend it. This is why we are headed toward a one-payer system, and the longer things are left the way they are, the sooner we will get to that one-payer system, as this current system is going to double our spending in real dollars again in the next ten to twenty years.

 

[auditor0007]

TennCare is almost undistinguishable from the health care system currently in the House. Perhaps I misunderstood your post but you seem to be under the assumption that HR3200 would put EVERYONE on the public option immediately. It wouldn't. It would function just as TennCare did. It would also fail as TennCare did.

How long would this plan be sustainable until it collapsed? Long enough until the private companies couldn't compete and went away, leaving just the public option?

Zoom, how long do you think it will be until our current system collapses our entire economy? Are you going to give an argument that spending 30 to 40 percent or more of GDP on healthcare is going to be a good thing for our economy and for all Americans? There isn't anyone out there arguing that our current system is going to lead to reduced or even stable costs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You don't need to look any farther than Tennessee. It was a disaster. It's amazing that anyone can't see what happened in one state and realize that it would be an even worse nightmare to try this nation wide.
****************************************************

July 22, 2009
Lessons For Health Care Reform
By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe
Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.
The genesis of TennCare has many parallels to the situation in which we find ourselves today. It was a public option plan designed to save money and expand coverage. In the early 1990s, Tennessee was facing rising costs in its Medicaid program. TennCare was designed to replace Mediaid with managed care and use the promised savings to expand coverage. By 1998, TennCare swelled to cover 1.2 million people. Private business dropped coverage for employees and forced them onto state rolls. By 2002 enrollment had swelled to 1.4 million people and forced Tennessee's Governor to raise taxes and ultimately propose an entirely new state income tax to cover the unforeseen costs. Governor Bredesen was ultimately forced to dramatically restructure a program he has since called "a disaster". By 2006 Bredesen had disenrolled nearly 200,000 people and slashed benefits.





RealClearPolitics - Lessons For Health Care Reform

Programs such as this become a problem because they are set up to cover those who are uninsured without figuring out where the funds will come from. And since most of the people in such a program do not pay for the program, the program is grossly underfunded.

Any type of one payer system must include everyone, not just the uninsurable. How in the world does it make sense to only cover those who don't qualify or can't afford to pay in the first place? A one payer system could work very well, but not if it is a bandaid to cover those who won't or can't pay. So what happens is that this type of program gets bogged down and can't fund itself, and it becomes a disaster.

In a one payer system, everyone must contribute. It is the only way that it can work. However, if everyone is part of the system, and everyone is contributing, then the system can work effectively. So your example is not a good one unless you are assuming, which may be correct, that the currently proposed public option would be completely underfunded from the get go and that those using the public option would not be paying a reasonable amount toward the system.

Doesn't it always seem that the answer is pre-determined when you decide where to begin the timeline?

How about we begin your 'one payer' conjecture with income taxes.

There's your 'one payer.' Taxes.

"...everyone must contribute." About half of us contribute to taxes.

"...figuring out where the funds will come from." Taxes, that's where.

Now, come up with the amount necessary to cover the low-income uninsured.

Already done: To provide said healthcare insurance, $28-35 billion. If you require a more comprehensive insurance plan for these folks, the figure becomes $49 billion.

Now compare this figure to the trillion and a half for ObamaCare. To use your phraseology, the system would be "grossly overfunded."

Since I don't believe that the folks in the administration are stupid, there must be an ulterior motive for this gross misspending of funds.

Kitten nailed it in post #7 above.

But, if you believe in the Easter bunny, they you can believe that ObamaCare
1. Cuts costs
2. Does not increase the number of physicians, but doesn't involve rationing of care
3. Allows private insurance to survive in competition with the 'public option'
4. The 'efficiency board' will OK procedures for the elderly

 

[auditor0007]

You don't need to look any farther than Tennessee. It was a disaster. It's amazing that anyone can't see what happened in one state and realize that it would be an even worse nightmare to try this nation wide.
****************************************************

July 22, 2009
Lessons For Health Care Reform
By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe
Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.
The genesis of TennCare has many parallels to the situation in which we find ourselves today. It was a public option plan designed to save money and expand coverage. In the early 1990s, Tennessee was facing rising costs in its Medicaid program. TennCare was designed to replace Mediaid with managed care and use the promised savings to expand coverage. By 1998, TennCare swelled to cover 1.2 million people. Private business dropped coverage for employees and forced them onto state rolls. By 2002 enrollment had swelled to 1.4 million people and forced Tennessee's Governor to raise taxes and ultimately propose an entirely new state income tax to cover the unforeseen costs. Governor Bredesen was ultimately forced to dramatically restructure a program he has since called "a disaster". By 2006 Bredesen had disenrolled nearly 200,000 people and slashed benefits.





RealClearPolitics - Lessons For Health Care Reform

Programs such as this become a problem because they are set up to cover those who are uninsured without figuring out where the funds will come from. And since most of the people in such a program do not pay for the program, the program is grossly underfunded.

Any type of one payer system must include everyone, not just the uninsurable. How in the world does it make sense to only cover those who don't qualify or can't afford to pay in the first place? A one payer system could work very well, but not if it is a bandaid to cover those who won't or can't pay. So what happens is that this type of program gets bogged down and can't fund itself, and it becomes a disaster.

In a one payer system, everyone must contribute. It is the only way that it can work. However, if everyone is part of the system, and everyone is contributing, then the system can work effectively. So your example is not a good one unless you are assuming, which may be correct, that the currently proposed public option would be completely underfunded from the get go and that those using the public option would not be paying a reasonable amount toward the system.

Doesn't it always seem that the answer is pre-determined when you decide where to begin the timeline?

How about we begin your 'one payer' conjecture with income taxes.

There's your 'one payer.' Taxes.

"...everyone must contribute." About half of us contribute to taxes.

"...figuring out where the funds will come from." Taxes, that's where.

Now, come up with the amount necessary to cover the low-income uninsured.

Already done: To provide said healthcare insurance, $28-35 billion. If you require a more comprehensive insurance plan for these folks, the figure becomes $49 billion.

Now compare this figure to the trillion and a half for ObamaCare. To use your phraseology, the system would be "grossly overfunded."

Since I don't believe that the folks in the administration are stupid, there must be an ulterior motive for this gross misspending of funds.

Kitten nailed it in post #7 above.

But, if you believe in the Easter bunny, they you can believe that ObamaCare
1. Cuts costs
2. Does not increase the number of physicians, but doesn't involve rationing of care
3. Allows private insurance to survive in competition with the 'public option'
4. The 'efficiency board' will OK procedures for the elderly

Well let us start with the fact that nearly everyone pays taxes. Granted, only 50% pay federal income tax. However, anyone who works pays SS and Medicare tax. Along with this, there are sales and use taxes, liquor and tobacco taxes, gasoline taxes, and a plethora of other taxes. Even the working poor pay around 20% of their earnings in these taxes.

Secondly, the idea that $49 billion will cover the uninsured is ludicrous. $49 billion might cover 1 million people. I can assure you there are a hell lot more than 1 million uninsured in this country.

I don't mind debating the pros and cons of this issue, but I get tired of those who continue to defend the system as it is, knowing full well that it is going to bankrupt the entire country, including the wealthy, within the next twenty or so years.

And I love the stupid arguments from people who say they shouldn't be forced to pay for health insurance if they don't want or need it because they are healthy. And then if they get sick, we all end up paying for it. But hey, it's there right. If you willingly choose not to insure yourself and have the ability, then I think if you get sick, they should just let you die.

But in our system, if you are sick, insurance companies will find any way possible to remove you from the system so they don't have to pay for your care. And then you can't get coverage even if you are willing to pay for it, or they make it so expensive, only the truly wealthy can afford it. And all the while, the costs continue to soar. It won't be long and we will be spending 30% of GDP on healthcare, and eventually it will top 40%. And all we get is arguments of how this is so wonderful?

All I can do is laugh, because the US will eventually end up having worse healthcare than the rest of the world as we will no longer be able to afford it period. All I hear is how people from other countries come to the US for healthcare. Well the fact is that more and more Americans are going to India and Taiwan or other countries for their medical care because they can't afford it here, even with insurance in many cases. And those numbers are only going to increase dramatically in the future.

 

[Zoom-boing]

TennCare is almost undistinguishable from the health care system currently in the House. Perhaps I misunderstood your post but you seem to be under the assumption that HR3200 would put EVERYONE on the public option immediately. It wouldn't. It would function just as TennCare did. It would also fail as TennCare did.

How long would this plan be sustainable until it collapsed? Long enough until the private companies couldn't compete and went away, leaving just the public option?

Zoom, how long do you think it will be until our current system collapses our entire economy? Are you going to give an argument that spending 30 to 40 percent or more of GDP on healthcare is going to be a good thing for our economy and for all Americans? There isn't anyone out there arguing that our current system is going to lead to reduced or even stable costs.

I'm not arguing that. I just asked a question and you didn't answer it. Maybe someone else will.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Programs such as this become a problem because they are set up to cover those who are uninsured without figuring out where the funds will come from. And since most of the people in such a program do not pay for the program, the program is grossly underfunded.

Any type of one payer system must include everyone, not just the uninsurable. How in the world does it make sense to only cover those who don't qualify or can't afford to pay in the first place? A one payer system could work very well, but not if it is a bandaid to cover those who won't or can't pay. So what happens is that this type of program gets bogged down and can't fund itself, and it becomes a disaster.

In a one payer system, everyone must contribute. It is the only way that it can work. However, if everyone is part of the system, and everyone is contributing, then the system can work effectively. So your example is not a good one unless you are assuming, which may be correct, that the currently proposed public option would be completely underfunded from the get go and that those using the public option would not be paying a reasonable amount toward the system.

Doesn't it always seem that the answer is pre-determined when you decide where to begin the timeline?

How about we begin your 'one payer' conjecture with income taxes.

There's your 'one payer.' Taxes.

"...everyone must contribute." About half of us contribute to taxes.

"...figuring out where the funds will come from." Taxes, that's where.

Now, come up with the amount necessary to cover the low-income uninsured.

Already done: To provide said healthcare insurance, $28-35 billion. If you require a more comprehensive insurance plan for these folks, the figure becomes $49 billion.

Now compare this figure to the trillion and a half for ObamaCare. To use your phraseology, the system would be "grossly overfunded."

Since I don't believe that the folks in the administration are stupid, there must be an ulterior motive for this gross misspending of funds.

Kitten nailed it in post #7 above.

But, if you believe in the Easter bunny, they you can believe that ObamaCare
1. Cuts costs
2. Does not increase the number of physicians, but doesn't involve rationing of care
3. Allows private insurance to survive in competition with the 'public option'
4. The 'efficiency board' will OK procedures for the elderly

Well let us start with the fact that nearly everyone pays taxes. Granted, only 50% pay federal income tax. However, anyone who works pays SS and Medicare tax. Along with this, there are sales and use taxes, liquor and tobacco taxes, gasoline taxes, and a plethora of other taxes. Even the working poor pay around 20% of their earnings in these taxes.

Secondly, the idea that $49 billion will cover the uninsured is ludicrous. $49 billion might cover 1 million people. I can assure you there are a hell lot more than 1 million uninsured in this country.

I don't mind debating the pros and cons of this issue, but I get tired of those who continue to defend the system as it is, knowing full well that it is going to bankrupt the entire country, including the wealthy, within the next twenty or so years.

And I love the stupid arguments from people who say they shouldn't be forced to pay for health insurance if they don't want or need it because they are healthy. And then if they get sick, we all end up paying for it. But hey, it's there right. If you willingly choose not to insure yourself and have the ability, then I think if you get sick, they should just let you die.

But in our system, if you are sick, insurance companies will find any way possible to remove you from the system so they don't have to pay for your care. And then you can't get coverage even if you are willing to pay for it, or they make it so expensive, only the truly wealthy can afford it. And all the while, the costs continue to soar. It won't be long and we will be spending 30% of GDP on healthcare, and eventually it will top 40%. And all we get is arguments of how this is so wonderful?

All I can do is laugh, because the US will eventually end up having worse healthcare than the rest of the world as we will no longer be able to afford it period. All I hear is how people from other countries come to the US for healthcare. Well the fact is that more and more Americans are going to India and Taiwan or other countries for their medical care because they can't afford it here, even with insurance in many cases. And those numbers are only going to increase dramatically in the future.

Up til' now I considered you worthy as some sort of counter-expert.

But your inability to do simple math obviates any such thought.

"... $49 billion might cover 1 million people..."????

Don't you realize that you are claiming $50 thousand dollars per person to cover these uninsured?

And that is if there are 50 Million of them, and there are only about 8 to 15 million, so you must be budgeting about $200,000 per!!!!

What is wrong with you???

"...but I get tired of those who continue to defend the system as it is, knowing full well that it is going to bankrupt the entire country,..."

You are a compendium of misinformation and have clearly become one who believes in feeling rather than knowing.

1. The vast majority are satisfied with their healthcare.
"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

2. The costs of healthcare have been going down, not up.

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

And while heathcare is improving the lives of Americans, it is 'education' that is spinning out of control, and not fulfilling its promise.

I can't begin to tell you how disappointing you have turned out to be.

 

[editec]

FYI, Mainecare isn't working, either.

I am partially to blame for it, too, as I was on the board of a Maine political organization (with 35,000 dues paying members, I note) which supported the current governor's bid for office who enacted this plan.

In our defence, however, our organization actually supported single payer universal insurance, but felt that the current governor was, while not perfect, at least slightly better than the man running against him.

Obama's plan isn't going to work in the way he imagines it will work, I suspect.

 

[Vel]

Programs such as this become a problem because they are set up to cover those who are uninsured without figuring out where the funds will come from. And since most of the people in such a program do not pay for the program, the program is grossly underfunded.

Any type of one payer system must include everyone, not just the uninsurable. How in the world does it make sense to only cover those who don't qualify or can't afford to pay in the first place? A one payer system could work very well, but not if it is a bandaid to cover those who won't or can't pay. So what happens is that this type of program gets bogged down and can't fund itself, and it becomes a disaster.

In a one payer system, everyone must contribute. It is the only way that it can work. However, if everyone is part of the system, and everyone is contributing, then the system can work effectively. So your example is not a good one unless you are assuming, which may be correct, that the currently proposed public option would be completely underfunded from the get go and that those using the public option would not be paying a reasonable amount toward the system.

TennCare is almost undistinguishable from the health care system currently in the House. Perhaps I misunderstood your post but you seem to be under the assumption that HR3200 would put EVERYONE on the public option immediately. It wouldn't. It would function just as TennCare did. It would also fail as TennCare did.

No I am not under the assumption that everyone would be put on the public plan. What I am saying is that programs such as TennCare are paid for, in the most part, from tax dollars that come from those who do not use the program. In order for such a program to be effective and solvent, the majority of funding must come from those using the program which would happen in great part as those who choose to use the public option will pay through employer deductions (the 8% of payroll levy) and premiums paid by the users of the program.

If however, the beneficiaries of the public option are not paying and the only ones paying are those who are already insured through private insurance, then of course the funding will not be there and it will turn into one big disaster.

Those that participated in TennCare that would not have qualified for Medicaid were charged premiums based on income and TennCare didn't cover seniors that qualified for Medicare. The program simply was unworkable. If the proposal that Obama is hyping is fundamentally different, please show me how.

 

[auditor0007]

Doesn't it always seem that the answer is pre-determined when you decide where to begin the timeline?

How about we begin your 'one payer' conjecture with income taxes.

There's your 'one payer.' Taxes.

"...everyone must contribute." About half of us contribute to taxes.

"...figuring out where the funds will come from." Taxes, that's where.

Now, come up with the amount necessary to cover the low-income uninsured.

Already done: To provide said healthcare insurance, $28-35 billion. If you require a more comprehensive insurance plan for these folks, the figure becomes $49 billion.

Now compare this figure to the trillion and a half for ObamaCare. To use your phraseology, the system would be "grossly overfunded."

Since I don't believe that the folks in the administration are stupid, there must be an ulterior motive for this gross misspending of funds.

Kitten nailed it in post #7 above.

But, if you believe in the Easter bunny, they you can believe that ObamaCare
1. Cuts costs
2. Does not increase the number of physicians, but doesn't involve rationing of care
3. Allows private insurance to survive in competition with the 'public option'
4. The 'efficiency board' will OK procedures for the elderly

Well let us start with the fact that nearly everyone pays taxes. Granted, only 50% pay federal income tax. However, anyone who works pays SS and Medicare tax. Along with this, there are sales and use taxes, liquor and tobacco taxes, gasoline taxes, and a plethora of other taxes. Even the working poor pay around 20% of their earnings in these taxes.

Secondly, the idea that $49 billion will cover the uninsured is ludicrous. $49 billion might cover 1 million people. I can assure you there are a hell lot more than 1 million uninsured in this country.

I don't mind debating the pros and cons of this issue, but I get tired of those who continue to defend the system as it is, knowing full well that it is going to bankrupt the entire country, including the wealthy, within the next twenty or so years.

And I love the stupid arguments from people who say they shouldn't be forced to pay for health insurance if they don't want or need it because they are healthy. And then if they get sick, we all end up paying for it. But hey, it's there right. If you willingly choose not to insure yourself and have the ability, then I think if you get sick, they should just let you die.

But in our system, if you are sick, insurance companies will find any way possible to remove you from the system so they don't have to pay for your care. And then you can't get coverage even if you are willing to pay for it, or they make it so expensive, only the truly wealthy can afford it. And all the while, the costs continue to soar. It won't be long and we will be spending 30% of GDP on healthcare, and eventually it will top 40%. And all we get is arguments of how this is so wonderful?

All I can do is laugh, because the US will eventually end up having worse healthcare than the rest of the world as we will no longer be able to afford it period. All I hear is how people from other countries come to the US for healthcare. Well the fact is that more and more Americans are going to India and Taiwan or other countries for their medical care because they can't afford it here, even with insurance in many cases. And those numbers are only going to increase dramatically in the future.

Up til' now I considered you worthy as some sort of counter-expert.

But your inability to do simple math obviates any such thought.

"... $49 billion might cover 1 million people..."????

Don't you realize that you are claiming $50 thousand dollars per person to cover these uninsured?

And that is if there are 50 Million of them, and there are only about 8 to 15 million, so you must be budgeting about $200,000 per!!!!

What is wrong with you???

"...but I get tired of those who continue to defend the system as it is, knowing full well that it is going to bankrupt the entire country,..."

You are a compendium of misinformation and have clearly become one who believes in feeling rather than knowing.

1. The vast majority are satisfied with their healthcare.
"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

2. The costs of healthcare have been going down, not up.

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

And while heathcare is improving the lives of Americans, it is 'education' that is spinning out of control, and not fulfilling its promise.

I can't begin to tell you how disappointing you have turned out to be.

Yes PC, that is exactly what I am saying. It will cost $50,000 per person over the ten year period we are discussing. The cost of $1 trillion being discussed is over the next ten years, not for one year. So when you use your figure of $49 billion, I had to assume you were talking about the duration of the entire projection and not just one year. In reality, it will probably cost a bit more considering we are currently spending $7900 per year per person. But hopefully, some cost savings will be realized to reduce that number under the proposed program.

Now, I think we should address your statement that the cost of healthcare has been going down over the last few years. How can anyone take you seriously when you make such an absurd statement? Maybe you meant to say that spending increases are declining, but even that is nothing to brag about. That is like saying that our deficit spending will begin to decrease in a few years (may or may not happen), but we will still be adding to the deficit, just as healthcare costs are rising at more than double the rate of inflation currently and have been for the last decade.

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs