Why not Universal Healthcare?

[thekid]

The real question probably is how it would effect those that are insured. May be you can shed more light on that.

To me that's the million (or billions) dollar question........

I have always argued that by default we already have a type universal health care in this country only it is called medicare/medicaid. It only kicks in when you are in the poor house and in an emergency situation and is the most expensive type of care given and in an inefficient manner. If you in effect eliminate this form of universal health care and replace it with a true universal health care system you will, in theory, eliminate a good deal of costs associated with the current application of medicare/medicaid. However the problem IMO of the proposed health care reforms is that they talk about adding coverages but none of them talk about cutting costs or reforming inefficiences. Administrative costs for healthcare in almost all of the rest of the world run on average around 4%-7% in the US they average around 17%. Now remember this is just admin costs-no real heath care is being provided/affected in this area. Congress could/should mandate a limit on admin fees which could mean an immediate 10% reduction in costs and (again in theory) help allow for the absorption of the additional insured under a universal health care system. Passing a law like this however would be viewed by many as socialist or smack of the government running health care. What is the role of government when an industry or the marketplace fails to work efficiently?

Our current system allows for inefficiences to exist and be passed onto to the consumer. Now some here will argue that the marketplace will take care of that because someone else will come along with a more efficient-cost effective plan and replace the costlier less efficient plan. But the reality is that the health care companies, like alot of other business' where competition was supposed to lower cost, have just carved up the business and a few major and regional players reap the rewards. This segmated market allows for costs to be increased disproportionate to inflation and results in either benefits being cut or more uninsured hitting the streets.

The way I see it we need to reform health care now only if it includes serious efforts to cut/control costs. The alternative is to wait until the current system produces so many uninsured that they completely overwhelm medicare/medicaid at a cost 10 times higher than the cost of reform. Since meaningful reform will require hard choices and intelligent thinking by our politicians and the proposed reforms just rearrange the status quo which one do you think will get passed?

[Smokey]

Thanks Kid for a thoughtful post which I also agree with. The theme of universal health care should be cost cutting (as you said it is rising exponentialy), and if that is not the goal, then why bother.

[E-Stat]

The theme of universal health care should be cost cutting (as you said it is rising exponentialy), and if that is not the goal, then why bother.

Good point. The Safeway Company has a means of promoting good health practices by providing lower health care rates to those for not smoking and not being overweight (two huge underlying causes behind massive health care costs). On NPR's Morning Edition, there was a discussion of that just this morning. I was amazed to hear criticism of the plan:

"It is a back door way of separating those who are healthy...It discriminates"

Hmmm. Isn't that the way auto and life insurance work today? Those who make poor driving choices (and incur higher expenses) are charged higher premiums. What's the difference?

"It will be intrusive for employers to have access to intimate details of your health records".

Nope. It is based simply upon whether or not you smoke and your BMI - body mass index which can be calculated from your height and weight. And proven to relate to health issues. One can easily guess anyone's height and weight simply by looking at someone else. There's no hiding those characteristics.

Anyone against promoting good health practices?

NPR Story

rw

[kexodusc]

Good point. The Safeway Company has a means of promoting good health practices by providing lower health care rates to those for not smoking and not being overweight (two huge underlying causes behind massive health care costs). On NPR's Morning Edition, there was a discussion of that just this morning. I was amazed to hear criticism of the plan:

"It is a back door way of separating those who are healthy...It discriminates"

Hmmm. Isn't that the way auto and life insurance work today? Those who make poor driving choices (and incur higher expenses) are charged higher premiums. What's the difference?

"It will be intrusive for employers to have access to intimate details of your health records".

Nope. It is based simply upon whether or not you smoke and your BMI - body mass index which can be calculated from your height and weight. And proven to relate to health issues. One can easily guess anyone's height and weight simply by looking at someone else. There's no hiding those characteristics.

Anyone against promoting good health practices?

NPR Story

rw

Operative words being "good" practices....I sure hope the clumsy BMI isn't used...Adrian Peterson would be penalized for being "overweight"...the guy has 6% body fat.

[E-Stat]

.Adrian Peterson would be penalized for being "overweight"...the guy has 6% body fat.

You are incorrect on both fronts. Safeway does use BMI and Peterson's 28.6 value falls below the 30 threshold. He would get the discount so long as he doesn't smoke.

rw

[kexodusc]

You are incorrect on both fronts. Safeway does use BMI and Peterson's 28.6 value falls below the 30 threshold. He would get the discount so long as he doesn't smoke.

rw

No I'm quite correct...
Unless private insurance companies are now more knowledgeable than the American Medical Association on health matters.
25 is the threshold for men.

Sources: http://books.google.com/books?id=4iS...age&q=&f=false

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index...ma/13653.shtml

If we let insurance companies tell us what is and isn't good health...

You've actually helped make my point for me...the 25 is probably too low anyway, which re-enforces my point about its clumsiness.

[E-Stat]

No I'm quite correct...

You are answering the wrong question and have gotten yourself all in a lather because you didn't read my link and my comment. I will repeat for clarification:

Safeway does use BMI and Peterson's 28.6 value falls below the 30 threshold.

We're not talking about what the AMA says. We're not talking about a theoretical concept. We are talking about WHAT SAFEWAY DOES TODAY. Your athlete example is very likely why THEY chose to extend the BMI limit to 30 and NOT use the 25 figure.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nope. It is based simply upon whether or not you smoke and your BMI - body mass index which can be calculated from your height and weight. And proven to relate to health issues. One can easily guess anyone's height and weight simply by looking at someone else. There's no hiding those characteristics.

Anyone against promoting good health practices?

NPR Story

rw

Unfortunately BMI is not going to tell you if someone has breast cancer or some other genetic disease.

If you don't smoke at work, then how would the employer know you smoke? They would have to gain access to your medical records, and that is a no no to me. I have seen what a company does when they are armed with an employees health records. No thanks.

I don't smoke, and my last BMI showed 5%. I have lupus though, and though I am generally very healthy, I would be penalized under Safeway's plan. I heard the NPR segment, and I didn't walk away quite as comforted as you did from Safeway's approach. Plus, you have to also take into consideration the valid complaints that Safeway employees have stated as well on this system. For us lean non smoking types with other issues this is no panacea.

[E-Stat]

If you don't smoke at work, then how would the employer know you smoke?

The existing Safeway plan does not check with medical records. It is on the honor system. Folks who smoke are not hard to identify.

I don't smoke, and my last BMI showed 5%.

BMI is an index of height and weight, not a percent. You might google the topic and enter your values to find your index. Mine is 24.5.

Plus, you have to also take into consideration the valid complaints that Safeway employees have stated as well on this system.

What were those?

rw

[GMichael]

The way I see it we need to reform health care now only if it includes serious efforts to cut/control costs. The alternative is to wait until the current system produces so many uninsured that they completely overwhelm medicare/medicaid at a cost 10 times higher than the cost of reform. Since meaningful reform will require hard choices and intelligent thinking by our politicians and the proposed reforms just rearrange the status quo which one do you think will get passed?

Your whole post was great, but I singled this part out because it's an actual solution. Profits need to be cut to a reasonable percentage.

[markw]

I'd vote for GM as president based on these two posts alone. so far, he's pointed out the various camps better than anyone else so far.

But, think there should be a sepatate category for those that can afford insurance (either filthy rich or work hard) and simply choose to not jump into the insurance pool because they can't see themself needing it.

It should be looked upon as an expense like auto insurance, rent, food, etc...

Personally, we're in category 1, but barely, and we pay a premium through work, but it does provide quite well for us. I don't want to sacrifice quality to save a few $$ and, my spidey sense telle me that this as-yet-proposed plan will do the former and exactly the opposite of the latter.

[GMichael]

I'd vote for GM as president based on these two posts alone. so far, he's pointed out the various camps better than anyone else so far.

.

Thanks for your vote, but I won't run. Mostly because I don't want to get my name drug through the mud in public. I have a record, and I inhaled.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Thanks for your vote, but I won't run. Mostly because I don't want to get my name drug through the mud in public. I have a record, and I inhaled.

Does Medicare/Medicaid pay for "Medical Marajuana"?

[bobsticks]

Thanks for your vote, but I won't run. Mostly because I don't want to get my name drug through the mud in public. I have a record, and I inhaled.

Amen breh...and recently too...

[thekid]

Your whole post was great, but I singled this part out because it's an actual solution. Profits need to be cut to a reasonable percentage.

Well its good to see this thread heating up a bit.......

G- Thanks for summarizing some of my points in half the time...

Well you do know that when you start talking about cutting/limiting profits to a "reasonable percentage" that people start socialism or worse. Of course most of these people are in some way associated with the status quo but they drape themselves in the flag and talk of the founding fathers but I digress.....

I guess it comes down to whether something as basic to our survival such as healthcare should be subject to the same market forces that determine the type of refrigerator or other common object that is bought in the marketplace. If someone was lying on the operating table just before that emergency surgery procedure the doctor leaned over and said "Now let's talk price" most people would be appalled. But how much profit would you consider "reasonable" at that point?