If all of the illegal immigrants left there would be billions saved to direct to needs of poor US citizens. We don’t have to go around and round-up 12+ million illegals either. If our federal gov’t. would enforce the current laws and fine the heck out of companies hiring illegals the jobs would dry-up because it would not be to the benefit of these companies to hire them anymore since the savings they were enjoying by paying below market wages would be eaten-up by fines. Additionally, just because someone goes to the emergency room doesn’t make it an emergency; therefore, our hospitals should be able to turn away any illegals who are not truly experiencing an emergency. If our gov’t. would quite misinterpreting the 14th Amendment there would be no issue of “anchor babies” which is also very costly. Why our gov’t. thinks it is more important to take care of people who stole their way into this country rather than our own is beyond my comprehension. I feel compassion for these people seeking a better life, but bottom-line we can not take care of the world. Mexico has harsh laws it enforces regarding illegal immigrants yet it dares to tell us what to do regarding its citizens who have illegally entered the US and set-up residence.

As a nation we have the right to decide who we want here and it should only be people who have something to contribute not take from this country. We have plenty of US born takers; we don’t need anymore. On that note it leads me to another point that falls in line with what #3 said. There are way too many people who add to the approx. 46 million uninsured that choose to be uninsured. I for one am tired of being reminded of the rights of others, but what about when their rights infringe upon mine? They have the right to use their money for whatever they choose, including not choosing to buy insurance. Now I’m supposed to feel sorry for them because they don’t have insurance? We budget our money to include the necessary insurances for our security, but others can buy the latest, greatest gadgets and toys for their kids and say they can’t afford insurance. We have become a nation of unaccountable, irresponsible, entitlement-minded babies and it’s SICKENING.

Lastly, why is everyone, including our government so focused on the small percentage of people not covered at the risk of the majority who are covered? Private health care may not be perfect, but it is definitely superior to public (for the reasons I noted above). If I have to accept the liberal, Democrat run House, Senate and White House because the “majority” voted them in then they should have to accept that the “majority” have and prefer private health care. The Obama administration and other liberals in office want us to believe it’s their bleeding hearts at work for the “poor,” but instead it is really about bigger government, power and greed- plain and simple. I hope and pray that more citizens of this great nation open their eyes, speak-up and get their reps and senators to see the light before it’s too late.
Note to Obama Supporters: Finger Weg Du Sozialists!!!

Do you really think government-run medicine can be more efficient than the private sector? How has it done so far? 45% of US medical expenditures are already spent by the government, through Medicare/Medicaid/VA/SCHIP. Has it proven itself more efficient than the private sector? No. The President’s Council of Economic Advisors recently stated that “nearly 30 % of Medicare’s costs could be saved without adverse health consequences,” implying 30% of Medicare’s spending is a waste, a proportion similar to that suggested for private insurance companies. Liberal pundits proudly assert that Medicare’s administrative costs are only 2-3%, much lower than the private insurance companies. Yet that number belies many hidden costs not attributed to Medicare (as fee collection, fraud investigation) that other government branches undertake on behalf of Medicare. The percentage is also low because Medicare payouts are so high. As the denominator grows, the relative size of the numerator shrinks.

The reason the government (and the private sector) have been unable to rein in expenditures is because the rise in costs is, for the most part, NOT due to company inefficiency. As Americans become older and fatter, healthcare utilization has risen. There’s also a greater array of services, drugs, and technologies available, whose use (and misuse) is fomented by the US fee-for-service healthcare model. Little is done to discourage waste, in the form of unnecessary tests or expensive drugs. Why would healthcare professionals offer unnecessary tests or technologies? Given that these tests offer the professionals reimbursement, additional protection against lawsuits, and greater patient satisfaction (as often the patients demand them), they may ask, why NOT offer them? Would politicians legislating for socialized medicine change this? Given the millions spent in lobbyists by the insurance industry, drug companies, and even professional organizations like the AMA, the answer is no.

So unless we overhaul the entire fee-for-service model, or decide to curb expensive technologies/services/drugs, things won’t change much under socialized medicine.
We will simply be transferring exorbitant healthcare costs from the private to the public sector.

What do we mean when we say the government should provide healthcare? It sounds almost noble to say, let the government pay for universal healthcare. But how does the government pay for this? Payroll taxes? Income taxes? Corporate taxes? Given that the underclass pays few of these taxes (43% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all), “let the government pay for it,” essentially means, “let the corporations/rich/even middle class pay for it.” This, coupled with our fee-for-service model, could prove a costly mix, as more people will be offered more services which they themselves need not worry about paying for. How will you discourage overuse? Costs will continue to skyrocket.

The secret to lowering healthcare costs is not who pays for it, but understanding what we are paying for. Streamlining the system, allowing for greater competition, or even making companies non-profit, could all help reduce costs to a certain extent (and it’s doubtful that making all of medicine government-run could do any better). But until we curb the increased demand for healthcare, and contain the rising supply of services offered, our healthcare costs will continue to rise.

http://healthyarguments.com/stats/pct-spending-vs-age.gif

Get it straight: capitalist medicine is inefficient. Double-check that graphic if you’re confused.

We spend the most out of any developed country and yet we don’t see the benefits. Why is that? More free market isn’t the answer.

I understand the purpose of calling it socialist medicine. It’s to evoke long lines and rations. It’s to conjure up images of government inefficiency (like waiting at the DMV or Post Office).

That’s clever. But what about the inefficiency of capitalist medicine?

How about the long lines you will face 20 years from now when you’re in court trying to fight your insurance company for coverage. Or what about rationing of decent nursing homes for your parents because they simply aren’t affordable in this country. Why are hospitals so crowded in America? It’s because capitalist medicine is taking us for a ride.

FACT: capitalist medicine is inefficient.
FACT: socialist medicine is not.

If you’re confused, re-read.

Unfortunately, The One, that Great Reconciliator, would couch any vice scolding with some form of moral justification. I can hear him now: “We must condemn the cigarettes that people smoke. But we must understand the cravings, the anxieties of modern life that drive people to smoke! I couldn’t disown the smoker any more than I could disown my vice-filled grandmother…”

You have the best handle on this situation which I have yet seen.
We know the lie that they are selling “health care” wherein in fact they are enabling poor health.
Imagine in your wildest dreams that Obama on his next info-mercial talked like a doctor from his bully pulpit and scolded the audience for their risks and self abuse, and expensive habits.

Instead of focusing on who controls healthcare costs, we should be focusing on why they have risen, and how to make them drop.

Why have costs risen so fast? A 2008 Congressional Budget Office report stated that hospital and physician costs are the largest proportion of expenses, and “most of the long-term growth in total healthcare spending has resulted from growth in either or both of these categories… About half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.” Rising healthcare costs are mostly due to technological advances, as well as the high cost of labor (much of medicine, unlike other fields, CANNOT be mechanized). Here’s a link to the CBO report: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8947/01-31-TechHealth.pdf

Administrative costs for private insurance, though on the rise, still only represent 12% of premiums. So while some savings could come from cutting administrative costs (e.g. streamlining the billing/claim process by standardizing forms/payment rules/codifications, making the entire process electronic), it would still not be enough. Tort reform, to reduce the direct and indirect legal costs (including unnecessary tests ordered more for lawyers’, not patients’ benefit) could do the same. Making all insurance carriers non-profit is an interesting option, though I don’t know if legally the government can force them to do so. More competition (from out-of-state carriers) could drive down premium prices.

All these measures are good, but they all focus on cutting the costs of supplying medicine. So long as the demand for medicine rises, so will the need to supply more (and incur in greater cost). Some medical complications are inevitable (we all get older, or get sick at one time or another). But what about avoidable medical complications? A substantial portion of the rise in healthcare use is due to complications from smoking, or drinking/eating in excess. The exploding diabetes epidemic we are witnessing is mostly not due to “bad genes,” but to bad eating/exercising habits. I personally would advocate higher sin taxes (alcohol and smoking, and also snacks and soft drinks), to help curb these behaviors, and make those who continue to engage in them pay a higher premium. We should all take care of our own health. Those individuals unwilling to do so (who continue to smoke or eat/drink in excess) should NOT be refused government benefits or treatment. But shouldn’t we find a way they put in a little more into the collective pot? If I was told not to smoke, but kept smoking, why should you have to pay for my lung cancer treatment? Believe me, if people didn’t smoke, or eat/drink in excess, half the hospital beds would be empty.

Ultimately, the cost of healthcare will still be expensive. You can’t get world-class healthcare on a shoe string. We must find ways to cut the runaway cost of supplying medicine. But the government can use its tax leverage (education programs don’t seem to be enough…) to foment healthier living, and drop the runaway demand for medicine as well. Each one of us must pay their share. But those who incur in greater risk should pay a greater cost.

It isn’t just a shortage of primary care physicians. It’s a shortage of ALL physicians, specialists as well as PCP’s. And that shortage is going to make rationing a solid fact, not mere conjecture. People need access to surgeons as well as PCP’s where they live. Making people wait many months or even years is not going to cut it and you will see quite a political backlash against the system when that happens.

If they put this system in place, and I assuming it is a done deal, the details have to be worked out, and when my Dad needs his left hip replaced and they make him wait a year or more for the surgery I am going to be furious. And if years down the road I need a knee replacement and I have to wait years in a queue I will be extremely angry.

If the government wants to cut down on expensive diagnostics using technology, it will result in wrong diagnoses, the correct treatments not done, and even people dying. I guarantee you that hell hath no fury than the people harmed by this bureaucratic insensitivity. The doctors are not going to like it too.

I still think Ms. Sebelius is on to something about creating non-profit insurance companies, cutting down on the exhorbitant overhead of marketing and gargantuan executive salaries. In my opinion, doctors are worth their pay. Administrators and managers less so. Kinda the way I look at pay structures in a university or college. The administrators make waaaay more than the professors do, and add less value overall.

I know it’s a tough competition, but this just might be the most hypocritical thing I’ve seen in the past year:

On Monday, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Pat Roberts (R-KS) introduced the “Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2009,” a new bill prohibiting Medicare or Medicaid from using “comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage.”
How bad is it? Let me count the ways.

1. Politicians who rail against wasteful government spending are taking action to prevent the government from reining in … wasteful spending.

2. Politicians who warn that the burden of entitlements is killing the federal budget are stepping in to block … the single most painless route to reducing the growth of entitlements.

3. They’re doing it in the name of avoiding “rationing of health care” … but they’re specifically addressing taxpayer-funded care. If you want to go out and buy a medically useless treatment, Medicare won’t stop you.

4. These same politicians are, of course, opposed to efforts to expand coverage. In other words, it’s evil for government to “ration care” by only paying for things that work; it is, however, perfectly OK, indeed virtuous, to ration care by refusing to pay for any care at all.
Add a comment E-mail This Print
Share