Health Care Deep Thought: Harper's Index
Today's health care deep thought is brought to you by by Harper's magazine, which notes in the September '09 Index:
- Percentage change since 2002 in average premiums paid to large US health-insurance companies: +87%
- Percentage change in the profits of the top ten insurance companies: +428%
- Chances that an American bankrupted by medical bills has health insurance: 7 in 10
Fortunately, the Blue Dog Dems are doing their best to kill the public option so that these obese profits won't be much threatened.
|
August 17, 2009 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (74 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Tom Vail | Aug 17, 2009 1:05:36 PM
If you read the "study," Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007:
Results of a National Study by David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa, you will find it is worthless except to be exploited by those who want to make you think Medical Bankruptcies are rampant. On page three of the "study" is table 2 from which all the headlines seem to be drawn. It reads:
Table 2 Medical Causes of Bankruptcy, 2007*
Percent of All Bankruptcies
Debtor said medical bills were reason for Bankruptcy – 29.0%
Medical bills $5000 or 10% of annual family income – 34.7%
Mortgaged home to pay medical bills – 5.7%
Medical bill problems (any of above 3) – 57.1%
Debtor or spouse lost 2 weeks of income due to illness or became completely disabled – 38.2%
Debtor or spouse lost 2 weeks of income to care for ill family member – 6.8%
Income loss due to illness (either of above 2) – 40.3%
Debtor said medical problem of self or spouse was reason for bankruptcy – 32.1%
Debtor said medical problem of other family member was reason for bankruptcy – 10.8%
Any of above 62.1%
*Percentage based on recent homeowners rather than all debtors.
The asterisk alone invalidates the data. People who are recent homeowners and who have filed for bankruptcy are a very select group (not the wide and diverse population that the authors want you to think this represents). They are also a group that is populated with many people who have proven that they can't handle money. Also, saying that they filed for bankruptcy because of $5,000 in unpaid medical debt sounds more like and excuse than the reason. Do you think the mortgage might be the real reason?
It appears that these Doctors set out to show that medical costs are a major cause of bankruptcies and by warping the study enough they feel they have accomplished their goals. They should stick to medicine and Harpers should at least read the study they quote before drawing the same unwarranted conclusions.
I responded similarly to Senator Merkley's office when his letter to me quoted this same junk science (http://ttoes.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/senator-merkley-replies-on-healthcare-reform/)
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Aug 17, 2009 1:27:36 PM
Okay, I'll bite, Tom.
I'm not questioning what you've written (although I want to investigate this oft-cited study closer). But can you show us some stats that, in your opinion, more accurately reflect the breakout of US bankruptcies between those that are health cost related and otherwise? Do you believe the true percentage of bankruptcies in the US is either/or a) comparable to the percentages in other industrialized nations b) reasonable/satisfactory/acceptable?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 1:48:40 PM
An interesting bit from the study:
"Few of the uninsured lacked coverage because of a preexisting condition (2.8%)"
To hear the arguments on BO, pre-existing conditions are among the largest problems in getting insurance.
But this would seem to indicate that it's not so.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 17, 2009 2:07:04 PM
To hear the arguments on BO, pre-existing conditions are among the largest problems in getting insurance.
Well, that's one of the problems with "pre-existing conditions."
Another problem with it is the problem of "recission", in which they deny a claim because they claim that you had that condition and failed to disclose it previously. Essentially, pocketing your premiums and then denying the care that you've paid for.
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Aug 17, 2009 2:13:16 PM
I think that eliminating the public option for the sake of gaining votes in the Senate really defeats the purpose of doing health care reform in the first place.
Posted by: urban planning overlord | Aug 17, 2009 2:19:13 PM
And I think that having no health care insurance program reform at all just because a public option doesn't have the votes REALLY defeats the purpose of doing health care reform in the first place.
Posted by: urban planning overlord | Aug 17, 2009 2:19:58 PM
Even without the public option, this is the foot in the door. Without the foot in the door, we are back to ground zero - nada - nothing.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Aug 17, 2009 2:23:39 PM
2.8% of 46 million is rough 1.3 million people who can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Add to that the millions more that Kari mentioned who have claims denied because of a pre-existing condition.
These are people with cancer, heart disease, stroke, congenital birth defects, pregnant women, diabetics, or even minor conditions such as asthma or sports injuries.
One wonders how many people would have to be affected before some folks would recognize this as a problem with our health care.
I suppose that they should "pull themselves up by their boot straps".
I guess Joe forgot the "compassionate" part of compassionate conservatism. Let them eat cake!
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 2:25:03 PM
Kari wrote:
"Another problem with it is the problem of "recission", in which they deny a claim because they claim that you had that condition and failed to disclose it previously."
Insurance fraud by an individual is a crime. If the condition was diagnosed and/or treated and was required to be disclosed, but was hidden, then the individual is attempting fraud.
On the other hand, if a condition wasn't diagnosed and/or treated, then it is not a pre-existing condition and qualifies for coverage.
Insurance law is already very specific on this point. To rescind coverage for something that isn't pre-existing is illegal (unless it is otherwise excluded).
So, other than making it illegal (which it already is) what 'solution' do you have in mind?
The law is already existing to deal with this. It's a matter of enforcement.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Aug 17, 2009 2:36:45 PM
"A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years."
From HealthReform.gov
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 2:38:56 PM
Sal Peralta wrote:
"2.8% of 46 million is rough 1.3 million people who can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition."
And many states already have high risk pools that will cover these individuals.
Are you aware of this?
Probably not. The propaganda you listen to from the left usually doesn't mention it.
Posted by: Greg D. | Aug 17, 2009 2:43:31 PM
If meaningful health reform fails, perhaps our Democratic majority Congressmen and women could also repeal the law requiring emergency rooms to offer treatment to every person who comes to the hospital with acute symptoms. As the dead pile up in the hospital parking lots around the country, the uninsured population will also be declining, one corpse at a time! One down and 46,999,999 to go!
May God Bless Adam Smith and our economic system.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 2:48:34 PM
Sal Peralta wrote:
"One wonders how many people would have to be affected before some folks would recognize this as a problem with our health care.
I suppose that they should "pull themselves up by their boot straps".
I guess Joe forgot the "compassionate" part of compassionate conservatism"
A government run system is sure to have all the compassion of the IRS, Sal.
Are you looking forward to that, when you've got no other option and they are the only game in town?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 2:58:31 PM
Dan Petegorsky wrote:
"From HealthReform.gov"
A truly unbiased source. lol
They were 'discriminated against', eh?
No, they did not qualify.
If you go to the bank for a loan, and you have no job, are they 'discriminating against you' when they turn you down?
C'mon, enough with the propaganda already, Dan.
If someone ALREADY has been diagnosed with an illness, then insuring someone against the 'risk' (that's what insurance does, it covers risk) isn't possible. They aren't 'at risk'. They already have it.
You can't buy life insurance for a dead person.
You can't buy auto insurance for the car that just was demolished.
You can't buy home insurance for the condo that just burned down.
What part of insurance do you not understand? Apparently most or all of it.
If all of us wait to get sick before buying insurance, how long do you think ANY insurance plan will be able to pay claims out of premiums collected?
Not very long.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Aug 17, 2009 3:04:31 PM
If someone ALREADY has been diagnosed with an illness, then insuring someone against the 'risk' (that's what insurance does, it covers risk) isn't possible. They aren't 'at risk'.
Sounds like you are making a good case for a public option - particularly since you seem to be suggesting that those who are fortunate enough to live in states that provide "last chance" insurance for high risk patients should avail themselves of state-run insurance.
Just curious, Joe, do you also oppose public funding of things like roads and emergency services?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 3:05:09 PM
Greg D wrote:
"meaningful health reform"
I am hopeful that we will get meaningful reform.
But I don't see it coming from the left.
Allow individuals and small businesses (and their employees) to pool together to purchase group health insurance at favorable rates like large corporations do.
Cost to the taxpayer = Zero.
That would be meaningful reform. Group insurance coverage would no longer depend on where you worked.
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 17, 2009 3:05:27 PM
There is a bottom line now.
The Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress, including -in theory- a veto-proof 60 seats in the senate, and the option of passing health care with 51 votes under budget reconciliation. The Democrats must produce a satisfactory health care bill, satisfactory to a majority of Americans, or they will prove they can't govern on the most vital issue of our time. The likely outcome of that is a loss of the mandate to govern. It's what the Rs are counting on, and why there will be no bi-partisan bill. 1994 Redux.
So how about talking to each other, Senate and House Dems, and passing a plan that will sell? Instead of all this grandstanding and posturing, this kabuki dance that is going on, or you will be gone in the next election cycle or two.
Are you listening, Kurt Schrader, Ron Wyden Jeff Merkley, David Wu, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio??
Posted by: Dan | Aug 17, 2009 3:06:22 PM
Joe,
Your comments perfectly quantify why having "health insurance" as a means to healthcare delivery completely fails. You've convinced me to scrap the insurance industry entirely!!!
Kudos.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Aug 17, 2009 3:17:35 PM
Are you looking forward to that, when you've got no other option and they are the only game in town?
I haven't seen anyone suggest that a single-payer system is likely to emerge from the current round of health care reform. If government is as inefficient as you seem to think, there is no reason to suppose that private insurers cannot compete with a public option. What they will not be able to do is use the lack of competition in the current system to reap inordinate profits at the expense of individual and corporate consumers of health insurance.
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Aug 17, 2009 3:36:02 PM
Gee, Joe. I'm feeling kinda neglected here. I go and try to be respectful and all. But you spend your time volleying posts, ripostes and counter charges with everyone else.
You make lots of claims and attempt to poke holes in others' arguments and views. I'm still waiting to see if you have any stats or studies to support your own.
Posted by: LT | Aug 17, 2009 3:46:18 PM
"If government is as inefficient as you seem to think, there is no reason to suppose that private insurers cannot compete with a public option. What they will not be able to do is use the lack of competition in the current system to reap inordinate profits at the expense of individual and corporate consumers of health insurance."
Not only that, but why are free market supporters so afraid of competition? Because insurance companies might have to provide the same customer service expected of sales and service in other sectors of the economy?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Aug 17, 2009 4:52:10 PM
Scott, in a nutshell the problem with the public option is that even the CBP estimates that it will COST between $1 and $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Obama and the dems stated that they would not raise taxes on the middle class. In order to pay for a public option there must be taxes raised across the board.
Personally I might not have a problem with that, the "were all in this together" syndrome. However it makes it tough on the dems who don't really want the bulk of America to have to pony up and pay for public option.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Aug 17, 2009 5:43:37 PM
Scott, in a nutshell the problem with the public option is that even the CBP estimates that it will COST between $1 and $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
Odd. Because the CBO has actually said that a strong public option could net in the $150 billion ballpark in cost savings in the next 10 years:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/07/10/exclusive-early-cbo-score-on-public-plan-it-s-good.aspx
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_cbo_tells_people_to_calm_d.html
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 17, 2009 6:45:44 PM
"...in a nutshell the problem with the public option is that even the CBP estimates that it will COST between $1 and $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
What will the Iraq war cost after we include medical and psychiatric care for wounded veterans?
Same for Afghanistnam?
What will the cost be if AfPak expands beyond the current border area?
It is interesting that people who are concerned about the cost of creating a humane and civilized health care system seem to not be concerned with the greater costs of barbaric and illegal wars of aggression.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Aug 17, 2009 7:06:29 PM
"From HealthReform.gov" A truly unbiased source. lol
Rather than laughing you might bother to check the actual references on the website. The material is fully footnoted/sourced; in this case the underlying data came from the very useful Kaiser Family Foundation's statehealthfacts.org site and a research paper from the Commonwealth Fund called Failure to Protect: Why the Individual Insurance Market Is Not a Viable Option for Most U.S. Families.
I share these for others who are actually interested in the data.
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 17, 2009 7:39:59 PM
I just participated in a teleconference townhall with Rep. Kurt Schrader. He took a firm stance on a public option. He deflected the teabaggers very well without being defensive. They took my question about my sister in law with life threatening cancer. Good answer.
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 17, 2009 8:06:46 PM
In my professional life I consulted with nursing homes on mental health issues. Any number of times I came across right wing elderly (including one former head of the GOP in Oregon) who railed against government (and taxes) all their lives, even on their sick bed. Yet, when it came time they needed 24 hr. medical care in a nursing care facility, to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, they and their families were the loudest to demand it from Medicaid and Medicare. (Medicare does not fund most long term nursing care.) Without it these yahoos would have died in filth, and their families would have been impoverished and homeless on the street. When you become old, sick, and infirm, suddenly all that self reliant talk goes out the window.
The motto of the Republican Party is:
" I want it for me, but not for thee."
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Aug 17, 2009 8:18:59 PM
Kurt-
I appreciate your correspondence, as always.
When the discussion came up about the public option being dropped, I guessed correctly that many of the people pushing for health care reform would be completely outraged at the thought.
As for me, I haven't made up my mind about the whole situation. My sister is actually at Harvard Medical School studying health care policy, and I'll have her on my talk show next month to talk about it. Kari Chisolm is actually scheduled to be on a few weeks later to talk about the horse race aspects of the 2010 election.
So, yeah, I'll just reserve judgement on the issue until I hear what my sister has to say. We'll cover a wide range of topics, like the plusses and minuses of the public option, single payer, etc.
All I know is that the status quo is completely unacceptable, and that people with health insurance still end up going bankrupt over hospital bills, and that people who work for a living often don't have health insurance, yet pay for other people to have it. That, to me, is a violation of the social contract that binds us all together.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 8:34:11 PM
LT wrote:
"why are free market supporters so afraid of competition?"
Competition is fine. But setting up a government subsidized entity to undercut the market isn't 'competition'. It's the intentional destruction of private enterprise to establish a government monopoly.
Think about it. Government would never approve the merger of the two companies if the result was detrimental to fair competition in the market.
But that's just what a government-run insurance plan would be.
If the government came to your town and set up a business doing what your employer does, and charging half as much, how long do you think you'd have your job? How long would your employer remain in business?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 9:00:55 PM
tl (in sw) wrote:
"Gee, Joe. I'm feeling kinda neglected here. "
lol , sorry tl. Not quite sure what you expect from me, but I'm usually not what people expect.
I didn't necessarily dispute any of Tom's stats, I simply pointed out one that he conveniently omitted.
It blows a giant hole in one of the main arguments I've seen used here at BO to justify ripping down our entire health care system and replacing it with a government monopoly.
The number of people without insurance due to pre-existing conditions is relatively small, and many of them qualify for high-risk pools that their state ALREADY offers.
So why are liberals trying to dismantle the entire system based on a few cases?
Because there's power and money to be had, that's why. And they think they can make themselves appear compassionate in the process. They are addicted to OPM (Other People's Money).
The stats he quoted were very interesting. The average bankruptcy was due to less than $20,000 in debt.
I have known people with NO insurance who went to the hospital and had a baby, and walked out with a huge bill and a payment plan.
They didn't declare bankruptcy, and it took years to pay off the birth, but they did it because they felt obligated to pay their own bill.
If others feel justified in declaring bankruptcy instead, they are the ones who will have to live with the consequences.
Hospitals, at least in my experience, are pretty good at working with you if you are willing to pay your bill.
Posted by: Tom Vail | Aug 17, 2009 9:04:56 PM
ti,
Tried to post a reply twice earlier and got a message that it could not be accepted. Hmmmmm. Did I say something wrong?
The point of my comment was merely to suggest that too many people are using too much junk science to support their points of view - on both sides. I am uninformed as to how we compare with other industrialized nations. I am not sure it is even important. Knowing we have x% more or less bankruptcies than Togo will not help us achieve reform solutions. Knowing the cause of rising medical costs will. Let's discuss that.
The source for my comments was:
http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
It is hard to believe that two MDs from Harvard, a JD from Harvard Law, and an Ohio Univ Sociologist are stupid. For me, that leaves the option that they had a point to make and "designed a study" to fit their point.
Let's debate the merits of reforming our medical system. Trying to scare the other side, whether with statistics showing rampant bankruptcy or death panels choosing who will live and who will die, is a sideshow distracting from a worthy discussion.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 17, 2009 9:12:12 PM
Dan wrote:
"Your comments perfectly quantify why having "health insurance" as a means to healthcare delivery completely fails. You've convinced me to scrap the insurance industry entirely!!!"
Yeah, 90+ percent of the citizens of this country have insurance, but it 'completely fails' according to you. (The large number of illegal aliens which liberals usually include in their figures of 'the uninsured', and the ways in which that is destroying the health care system by Democratic design, are the subject of another post entirely.)
So you want to destroy what the overwhelming majority of US citizens uses in order to politically empower your party.
What a pathetic position.
No, I haven't 'convinced you' of anything. You were already wanting to destroy what you did not understand.
Posted by: LT | Aug 17, 2009 9:42:27 PM
Joe--here is what I mean by competition:
If you don't like a PC, you can buy a Mac.
If you don't like the bagless vacuum cleaners heavily promoted in some quarters, you can buy one with disposable bags (I once worked in a store selling vacuums). If you think the restaurant had lousy service or the food was not as good as before, you never have to go there again--same with the store where you went for a major purchase but no one would answer your questions.
There are states where there is really only 1 company selling insurance on the private market. As I recall, Sen. Grassley represents one of those states.
There is an alternative to public option but not one I think the free market people will like.
Regulate the private insurance market so there are no more horror stories. The way banks have been regulated since long before any of us were born. Make it illegal to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. If an insurance company claims they can't cover someone who they claim has died (happened to a friend's family) make them produce a death certificate. No caps on how much money can be paid out on a claim (as happens to some cancer patients and others). Basic care for all (having known a child that was born early, I wonder where the "pro-lifers" stand on requiring all children to have coverage for all births. Anyone here have an idea of the expense for a child born more than 3 weeks early?
Provide accident coverage for all. Stop thiw nonsense where someone slips in a store and the insurance company expects the person who slipped to be examined, "and I am pretty sure we will pay for it"---there should be a way where being treated is not a gamble.
Provide simple things (room air conditioner so a medically fragile person doesn't have to be taken to the ER for heat stroke).
Lots of other prevention measures. Electronic medical records that are compatible.
Is that what the anti-government people want? Or that they want the status quo?
And did I hear someone requested a CBO estimate on Single Payer over the August recess?
Posted by: Group Health Insurance Plan | Aug 18, 2009 2:44:48 AM
Well i supposed in this global crisis we need to make sure that the insurance company are able to accommodate those people insurances and we have to be smart of choosing the right insurance company too.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Aug 18, 2009 5:29:34 AM
Joe White wrote "Competition is fine. But setting up a government subsidized entity to undercut the market isn't 'competition'. It's the intentional destruction of private enterprise to establish a government monopoly."
That doesn't even make sense, Joe. You claim competition is fine, but are afraid of a strong competitor.
It's interesting to watch the insurance industry give lip service to cooperatives, while stoking mindless fear of a public option. A public option *is* a cooperative. It's the public cooperating and using it's large purchasing power - just like Wal-Mart - to negotiate the best price for goods and services.
It's ... interesting ... that big business advocates believe large concentrations of purchasing power are ideal if directed by a few powerful shareholders (Wal-Mart, etc.), but an evil boogeyman if directed by 300 million voters (a public health option)?
We have the right to democratically cooperate and combine our purchasing power as citizens.
Big business likes to claim it's more efficient than government programs.
So prove it.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 18, 2009 6:28:08 AM
Leo Schuman wrote:
"That doesn't even make sense, Joe. You claim competition is fine, but are afraid of a strong competitor."
Government subsidy goes beyond competition, Leo. You know that.
I have asked several times , but no one has the courage to answer, what would happen to your employer if the government came to town and set up a company doing what you do, and charging half price?
How long would you have your job?
How long would your employer continue to exist?
Your employer has invested his own money to build a business.
Government coming in and undercutting private enterprise to drive them out of business is no different than thievery.
Just because they pass a law allowing it doesn't make it right either.
If you favor using the government to compete with private business, you favor legalized theft.
I do not want a health care system run by the same folks who run the IRS. Maybe you do, but most Americans seem to agree with me.
The more they hear of the Democratic plans, the less they like them.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 18, 2009 6:33:16 AM
Leo Schuman wrote:
"We have the right to .... combine our purchasing power as citizens."
Yes, you do.
But you don't have the right to use the government to run companies out of business.
Use your own private funds (and the private funds of those who agree with you) to establish a buying group and I have no problem with it.
You want to get into the health care business and compete? Fine. Do it the way all the other health insurers had to do it. With private funds, starting from zero, with no government subsidy.
Don't pretend you're 'establishing a level playing field' by taking billions of tax dollars to form a mega-corporation overnight.
Start from scratch and build your business with your own money.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 18, 2009 6:37:17 AM
LT wrote:
"Joe--here is what I mean by competition If you don't like a PC, you can buy a Mac"
Yes, that is competition. Two private companies where someone risked their own money and poured in their sweat to make a product people wanted.
Neither company was given billions of taxpayer dollars to start a computer company.
Yes, that is competition. What the Democrats are proposing is not.
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 18, 2009 7:53:20 AM
Please don't feed the troll. Joe White constantly posts misleading or outright false information.
Joe lies: Yeah, 90+ percent of the citizens of this country have insurance, but it 'completely fails' according to you.
US Census fact: 18% of the population under 65 is without health care. (DeNavas-Walt, C.B. Proctor, and J. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007. U.S. Census Bureau., August 2008.)
Joe misleads: And many states already have high risk pools that will cover these individuals.
Fact: Being denied for a pre-existing condition is very different from being "high risk." It is only in the past decade that individuals were even protected from denial (Source: US Department of Labor http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html) and you can still be denied for such conditions as carpal tunnel syndrome which are not covered in the high risk pools.
Joe lies: Think about it. Government would never approve the merger of the two companies if the result was detrimental to fair competition in the market.
Fact: This is fallacious. The has been vigorous debate over the level of competition that is required for economic efficiency (see most obviously Robert Bork's book "The Anti Trust Paradox" and the actions of the antitrust division through most of the last decade).
Let's get to the core issue, though: health care as a market. There are extensive studies of the health care "market" and most mainstream economists identify it as a case of market failure.
Even if you accept most of the arguments about the efficiency of the private sector and market competition, the FACTS are that the essential nature of health care as a "product" makes market incentives nearly inoperative.
This is why most capitalist nations have opted for single payer plans. And this is why the U.S., which stubbornly resists single payer, is as a consequence driving our economy right into the toilet.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Aug 18, 2009 8:21:38 AM
Well said, Paul.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 18, 2009 8:33:57 AM
Paul G wrote:
"US Census fact"
Your source states:
"The uninsured rate for the nativeborn population declined to 12.7 percent in 2007"
I will admit that I was estimating (basically guessing) and will accept that and change my statement from 90+ to 87.3% . I wasn't actually too far off.
My question is why you, with this data at your fingertips would attempt to mislead by only citing 'general population' figures for those 'under 65'?
My statement, as you are well aware, was about 'citizens' not about the 'general population', and not about only those 'under 65'.
So while accusing me of lying, you post figures that do not address my specific statement and which paint an incorrect picture of the number of citizens which have insurance.
In essence, you erected a strawman, Paul G.
Now, since 87.3% of citizens have insurance, my criticism of Dan's statement stands.
He claims that the insurance model 'completely fails' when in reality it is utilized by 87.3% of US citizens.
It seems to me that he has an odd view of 'completely fail'. The only reason I can see that Democrats wish to tear down a system that the overwhelming majority of US citizens use would be to empower themselves politically.
The good of American citizens is a secondary consideration, if that, in the view of Democrats. Acquiring power is first and foremost.
The Democratic attitude is 'we know what's best for you'. They want to pose as generous while using other people's money.
I have no intention of allowing liberals to establish a government monopoly on health care.
If you want to build a company with your own money to compete with existing health insurors, go for it. I encourage you to do it and I hope you are wildly successful.
But you aren't going to get billions of taxpayer dollars to create a mega-corporation overnight as your toy.
Use your own money and quit trying to steal public money to build an empire for yourselves.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 18, 2009 8:37:25 AM
Paul G wrote:
"you can still be denied for such conditions as carpal tunnel syndrome which are not covered in the high risk pools."
More likely you would be able to get health insurance that covers nearly everything except the CTS. It would be excluded from the policy(and rightly so) if it had already been diagnosed/treated before you applied for insurance.
You can't buy life insurance for a dead person.
And you should not be able to wait til you are sick and then enroll in health insurance.
What part of that do you not understand?
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 18, 2009 8:40:07 AM
Paul G wrote:
"This is why most capitalist nations have opted for single payer plans."
I couldn't care less what 'most nations' have done.
We don't have to change our form of government to be like the French or the Brits or whoever.
If you like their system better, move there.
There is a reason this country was created differently.
It's because we wanted it to be different than the other countries we came from.
Hello?
Posted by: Tom Vail | Aug 18, 2009 11:35:21 AM
In my humble opinion, Democrats want the government to take over the health insurance industry to gain power and Republicans want to derail anything Mr. Obama does in Healthcare because they want some of the power back that they lost to him.
There is, in fact, an opportunity here to improve our system of healthcare. We can make it more cost effective. We can make it more responsive to more people. We can retain its world-class innovation. The way to do this, however, is not by demonizing the Insurance Industry or by scaring seniors with talk of death panels.
If Health Insurers could compete without government interference, our costs would all be lower. Government mandates, HIPA laws, and liberal litigation law have a major impact on the cost of health insurance. Since every proposal I have seen from the House or Senate takes those as a given, I am convinced that our Political Leaders have no intent to solve any problems with our healthcare system. No matter what stripe they wear, this is about the power it represents.
I would love to see a Harpers article that laid out the real opportunities to make our system better rather than seeing them just repeat junk science to support their objective. Wouldn't it also be nice if Blue Oregon readers were Liberal (read "open minded") and would discuss the issues with a light to discover solutions rather than to maintain their position of power.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 18, 2009 1:16:08 PM
for Joe White & anyone else advocating for "private" markets: they don't exist. for anything. there is a public component - costs paid by the public, thru taxes and otherwise - in every business venture. whether it's roads, safety, education, protection, an economic system that's protected by the govt, a banking system businesses can depend on thanks to the govt, etc etc. it's a list so long & so vital that without the "intrusion" of govt, no business could exist.
i would trust, by a factor of a gazillion, a govt-run public option over any - ANY - private market-based option. corporations exist to maximize profit. period. it is that simple. govt exists to serve the people and despite all of the problems, govts in the United States at all levels do a pretty good job of that. to the extent that they fail in that, it's largely because the citizens play no role in their govt, by choice, and that gap is filled by the lobbyists and others.
i have no health insurance. i do not want "cheaper" private insurance. fuck that. i want my public option - along with 60-70% of all Americans.
Posted by: Joe White | Aug 18, 2009 1:25:47 PM
T.A. Barnhart wrote:
"i would trust, by a factor of a gazillion, a govt-run public option over any - ANY - private market-based option. corporations exist to maximize profit. period. it is that simple."
Doctors go into medicine expecting to make a good living. Much better than the average Joe.
So if you get sick, you'd better not go see one of those money grubbing snakes.
Farmers produce food to make a profit.
I hope you're not supporting any of those capitalist *&/#s.
Barnhart, you are priceless entertainment, my friend.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 18, 2009 1:34:46 PM
Comments, to date, on this post: 46
Comments by Joe White who has endeavored to overcome the reality-based data of other commenters: 16
Volume isn't always convincing, Joe. Just sayin.
Posted by: Blue collar Libertarian | Aug 18, 2009 2:11:27 PM
paul g. writes: "This is why most capitalist nations have opted for single payer plans."
I'd like to know which ones these are, but here are three that don't from the N.Y. Times.
"... if the health systems of the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland are any guide.
None of these countries uses a government-run, Medicare-like health insurance plan. They all rely on purely private, nonprofit or for-profit insurers that are goaded by tight regulation to work toward socially desired ends. And they do so at average per-capita health-care costs far below those of the United States — costs in Germany and the Netherlands are less than half of those here."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/
So how come we have the problems we do? Could it be other factors?
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Aug 18, 2009 3:44:41 PM
5 common fears about health care reform - Consumer Reports:
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/insurance/health-care-reform/5-common-fears-about-health-reform/reform-5-common-fears.htm
Tom, a common belief is that medical malpractice is one major factor driving the increase in healthcare costs. However, at least one study finds:
Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of overall health care costs, and medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs.
http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/090722.html
Joe, I have no objection to well paid medical care providers. You might be surprised to know, Joe, that even in England and other countries whose medical services you deride, doctors are well paid. Maybe not as much as here, but they still do very well.
What I do object to, is insurance companies whose profits are so extreme, who do direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumers, who pay for more lobbyists than any other industry, all the while we settle for ~30th in the industrialized nations in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy.
Btw, have any of the anti-reformists ever lived abroad and/or received medical care from these providers and systems you judge to be so inferior? I have. I find it shameful that we believe healthcare should be motivated by profit and that many consider it just and correct to deny health coverage to anyone here including non-citizens.
In fact, I would be happy to have the medical care system that treated to me over 20 years ago in the former East Germany instead of what I have here today in the US. That'll probably brand me as a crazy ultra-leftist fanatic by the anti-reformists. Call me what you like. I can speak from personal experience.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Aug 17, 2009 11:42:31 AM
Wish I could find the whole current Harper's Index online. Here's a bunch of stats someone compiled for the state of N. Carolina. Has anyone compiled the same for Oregon?
http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2009/06/22/some-data-on-health-care-and-health-care-reform-in-north-carolina/