| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/2/5-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:45664 Activity:moderate |
2/5 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/edwards.2008.ap/index.html "Edwards: Raise taxes to provide universal health care" Edwards will lose. Most Americans hate immigrants and social programs and thus don't want universal anything. It's the era of corporations and privitazition baby! \_ 60-70% polled say universal helth care is the fed's responsibility: \_ Christ this discussion is fucking stupid. -dans \_ 60-70% polled say health coverage is the fed's responsibility: http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm 62% want universal health insurance: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html \_ Move to Canada. \_ No I intend to stay and fight. Where are you going to run to after you lose? \_ Sure, I want someone else to pay my bills, too, but I'm not willing to pay the taxes for it. I'll pay more to get less. Any cash that goes through government hands before turning into a service that you could otherwise buy yourself is always going to cost more and yield less. Government, by its very nature, is inefficient and has costs. No one really believes Edwards "tax the rich" thing. That sort of thing always turns into a universal tax. AMT is the perfect example of sticking it to the rich but nailing the middle class (as always). \_ And who has been in the position to "fix" the AMT for the past 12 years, and did nothing? You spew a lot of talking points, but you're not saying anything. \_ AMT was created decades ago. During the absolute iron fisted rule of both parties during that time and during the creation process itself, no one thought to consider that the numbers didn't scale with inflation. Or didn't care. The "GOP is evuuuul!" meme is tired. Let it rest. If you had something to say on the topic, please join in, but don't waste precious bits with partisan nonsense. Neither party will do jack shit for the middle classes that are already starting to get nailed by this, starting in more expensive states like CA. --gpp \_ This is funny. The pp criticized "government", not a party. "Government" has been in charge for the last 12 yrs. \_ This is a bullshit point. As is "Government == inefficient". And it's a point formed and fed by one party in particular. Ergo my reply. "Government is incompetent, and by God, we're going to prove it." \_ Yes, gov't == inefficient and incompetent is true in general, simply because there's no driving force to fix those problems. See, I can counter your assertion with mine! \_ Yes, Enron did a much better job of supplying California with power than the regulated utilities and the City of Los Angeles. \_ Ah, but it was because of the government's \_ But it was because of the government's handling of energy contracts that Enron was able to screw us. \_ On average, we pay 2x as much for poorer health care than in the socialized medicine countries. The elite can get very good care, but most of the rest of us are screwed. Further, efficiencies will accrue. Preventative care is a lot cheaper. Prescribing diet change, quitting smoking, and exercise costs less than triple bypass surgery. \_ You're insane. Efficiencies do not _ever_ accrue in government services. You can prescribe all you want, no one is going to do it and then you'll need triple by pass surgery. That surgery will be denied by some government flunky because you didn't excercise like the nice government doctor told you so you are not allowed the surgery and die horribly. Good call. \_ Look it's the "you are insane" guy! Welcome back to the guy who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is literally crazy! \_ Ad hominem. Try again if you like. \_ The "you are insane" guy is complaining about ad hominem attacks? Or is that intended to be a compliment??? \_ If you skip the first two words you're obsessing over and try to respond to the points made you'd be on firmer ground. \_ If you'd skip the ad hominem attacks, you'd have a better chance of convincing people that you had a reasonable point worth thinking about. \_ Are you saying that a road system built by corporations would be more efficient? How about a national defense? Those are two areas where Gov't is more efficient at serving the people. There's a lot of inequity and waste \_ Health care is not a public service and does not need to be. It worked just fine before HMO's were allowed to monopolise and destroy the system so the answer is to create an even bigger monopoly but at the federal government level. Oh great, yeah that will be wonderful. A service that requires skill and personal service being provided by government robots. That you can even consider compare the road system to personal health care says volumes. There are zero similiarities. The closest gov't provided personal service I can think of to health care is housing. Oh yeah, The Projects. Section 8 housing has been so uplifting for so many. in the current health system due to insurance overhead. Having Gov't as single-payer (with revenue taxed out of us) would eliminate the insurance nightmare. It would *also* allow for much more safely regulated hospitals. The NTSB \_ So you think your hospitals are unregulated? What? has made commercial aviation the safest mode of travel. You're quite likely to die in hospitals due to medical fuckups which are endemic to the healthcare system, and with gov't regulation could be fixed across the whole system, as the NTSB has done for commercial aviation. \_ Because healing a sick person\ is just like flying an airplane or running an airport. Uhm, yeah. \_ Because healing a sick person is just like flying an airplane or running an airport. Uhm, yeah. \_ Does no one here understand the distinction between "health care" and "paying for health care"? The answer becomes increasingly clear.. \_ Who ever has the bucks has the power. You are not going to get quality health care from Doctor A when Government or HMO Flunky B says you don't need that procedure. Once you figure that out you'll see why so many scream about government healthcare. Whoever has the bucks has the power and makes the decisions. In a government/hmo system that isn't you or your doctor. \_ Actually, you're right about the bucks. Nobody can pay their own medical bills, So we buy health insurance, and the insurance company pays the bills. So the insurance company has the power. Their interest is profit, so they make it hard for doctors to collect. This makes it expensive for doctors to collect. Which gets passed onto us--to the point where many of us can't afford health insurance anymore. However, hospitals cannot just refuse someone care because they're poor. (By law.) So doctors have to increase the prices on those of us who do have insurance. This situation is spiralling out of control, and is wasteful. We *could* simply not offer any medical care at all to the poor (poor meaning "not rich", so fuck the middle class as well as the true poor.) *Better* is for prices on those of us who do have insurance. This situation is spiralling out of control, and is wasteful. We *could* simply not offer any medical care at all to the poor (poor meaning "not rich", so fuck the middle class as well as the true poor.) *Better* is for the government to get involved, kick out the insurance companies, reduce the overall cost of health care, and make the poor pay for health care again via taxation. And health care *better* be a public service, because Joe Contageous with intractable TB who isn't being treated because he's poor is going to give it to *you*. Right now hospital A kills people with the same damn fuckups that hospitals C, D, E, F, G, H....-->Z have \_ Yes, the federal government is the driving force for innovation in this country. Not even God can save us if that ever becomes true. killed people with because they refuse (and can refuse) to learn best-practices learned elsewhere the hard way, by people dying. \_ I used to believe that about roads and military, but I don't any longer. Do you know how many private security contractors are in Iraq? Nearly 50,000. I'm fairly confident that if the government employed a few companies to perform military functions, it would be cheaper and more efficient. And the gov't might actually attempt to obey the constitution as well (since it wouldn't have the biggest guns). \_ This is, quite possibly, the most uninformed post evah. \_ If you have something to say, say it. All you've done is stick your tongue out and go, "NYAH! YOU ARE A DUM POOPYHEAD!" \_ Because that's all you deserve. Never argue with fools. They'll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience. \_ You still said nothing. Here's the best response you can get from what you've said, "NYAH! YOU ARE A DUM POOPYHED TOO!" Now we're at the same level of discourse at least. Or the adult version, "I'm soooo smart and you are soooo dumb I can't even begin to explain it!" which is known as, "I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm going to tell you you're an idiot for not thinking like me, anyway". \_ Iraq has been by far the most expensive war the US has ever fought (yes accounting for inflation). Those 50,000 private security contractors have a lot to do it costing so damn much. \_ Where's your data for this? How much are they costing compared to US uniformed troops in comparable positions? \_ I'm curious as to where your "Nearly 50k" number came from. As the pentagon has claimed they don't have any numbers on contractors in Iraq, they may be interested in your powers of divination. As for the cost overruns, Henry Waxman just started his hearings. After almost 4 years of R delay, he may just be able to get you an answer on that. \_ Well, you are wrong and he is wrong, but just read this and see: http://www.csua.org/u/i08 (Washington Post) \_ An external organization giving an estimate does not negate my claim that the pentagon has said they don't know how many contractors are in iraq. \_ The GAO giving an estimate does not negate my claim that the pentagon has said they don't know how many contractors are in iraq. \_ That wasn't the question. \_ The question was "Do you know how many private security contractors are in Iraq?" The answer is "By necessity, no." \_ What is wrong with the GAO estimate? Why does it matter if the Pentagon knows or not when we're discussing if random motd poster whos or not from another source? Ah, I see. P has blessed the results of the external survey. the external survey. So you're taking them as the Pentagon claim. So.. the auditiors have to tell the P just how many contracts they've given out... You don't see a problem here? \_ I see no problem with working with the best numbers available, instead of throwing up my hands and claiming that since I can't get perfect information, there is no point in even trying to understand the situation. \_ It doesn't concern you that the P is spending $Bs on contracts, and doesn't know where it's going? \_ You're comfortable with the idea of corporations having bigger guns than the government? Seriously? Our government may be incompetent and wasteful, but corporations are psychopaths. \_ Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Corporations are no more than aggregates of people, with a corporate aim. Sounds like the gov't to me. Since the gov't doesn't care what the voters think, how precisely is that different? \_ The main difference between corporations and the government is that corporations compete against each other. The government, through legislation, does not have to compete with industry and can control markets. The government is a form of dictatorship and monopoly rolled into one. Sometimes it's a benevolent dictatorship, but it's still a dictatorship. Smaller government is better. \_ Mega corps that have legal rights as people is just as bad as having an over bearing uncarin gigantic federal system. \_ Actually, technically, corporations are sociopaths, but otherwise I agree with you. What the person above me doesn't understand is that corps are different from government due to profit motive. If that can make a buck by killing you horribly, the corp won't hesitate a second. To get the government to kill someone means making a bunch of slack government employees fill out paperwork, attend meeting, record metrics, and general interfere with other things they'd rather be doing. \_ Ha ha! Talking with people who have lived in countries with socialized medicine has made it clear you're full of crap. Do you really want hospitals to turn into the DMV? \_ Actually this was from news stories in the US. \_ Which news stories? \_ Six years of living with socialized medicine in Japan made it clear to me that hospitals can be efficient, competent, and cheap. Where's your personal experience to the contrary? \_ Canada. \_ How long were you there, and what did they screw up? \_ A friend, and he needed an MRI and found out the waiting list was 18 months long--people dying before they could get an MRI, etc. \_ Anecdotal hearsay evidence isn't very strong. \_ http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba369 http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-23-96.html http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=855 etc. etc. etc. |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/edwards.2008.ap/index.html Most Popular Edwards: Raise taxes to provide universal health care Story Highlights Presidenial candidate John Edwards unveiled universal health insurance plan $120 billion a year plan would require every busines to provide insurance Edwards would taxes on on those making over $200,000 a year to pay for plan Funds would be used to help businesses, individuals buy insurance Adjust font size: Decrease font Decrease font Enlarge font Enlarge font WASHINGTON (AP) -- Presidential candidate John Edwards is embracing a position that has been political suicide in the past -- admitting he would raise taxes. The 2004 vice presidential nominee is betting that voters will back the idea in exchange for the promise of quality health coverage for all, part of the first major domestic policy initiative from a Democratic White House hopeful. The tax increase would pay for the plan's cost of up to $120 billion a year. Edwards' proposal would require that every business provide health care coverage for employees or help them pay for it and every American has insurance. Edwards argues that it will be cheaper for families and businesses to have insurance coverage while providing health care to the nation's 47 million uninsured. "I think that most Americans now believe that instead of small, incremental change, that we need transformational change that will strengthen this country," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. Staking an early claim Edwards was setting an early marker in what is shaping up to be perhaps the top domestic policy issue in the Democratic race nearly a year before the first votes are cast. Several others are expected to offer competing ideas in the coming months. "The whole idea for me on these big issues like Iraq and health care, I want to lead, not follow," said Edwards, who also has been pressuring his rivals to pull funding for President Bush's troop increase. "So I'm not waiting for other people to say where they stand. The plan would free up money for health care coverage by abolishing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes, Edwards said. His idea immediately opened him to criticism that he's a tax-and-spender in the mold of Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee who said he would raise taxes. "Edwards' America Will Pay More Taxes," said a news release from the conservative Club for Growth. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a universal plan in the nation's most populous state. Mitt Romney, also running for president, signed a law last year requiring universal coverage. What Edwards is proposing is very different from what he offered four years ago when he was a North Carolina senator and first-time presidential candidate. In the 2004 race, Edwards proposed to cover all children but didn't have a broader plan for adult uninsured. A very personal issue Since then, Edwards has had a very personal experience with the health care system as his wife successfully battled breast cancer. Edwards said they had excellent coverage, although the two of them -- both former lawyers -- struggled to wade through the insurance bureaucracy. He said his position was not changed by that experience but by the people he's met across the country who are struggling with rising health care costs. Barack Obama, also has said that is his goal, but the Illinois senator has yet to provide more specifics about how he would get there. Hillary Rodham Clinton also has said she will have a universal plan. Video ) Edwards plan would first require employers to cover every worker or contribute 6 percent of each worker's income toward coverage they buy on their own. It also would provide government-funded insurance to all adults under the poverty line and all children and parents under 250 percent of the poverty line, which is about $50,000 for a family of four. The Edwards campaign is still working on other cost estimates, but says the goal would be to keep the cost to 5 percent to 7 percent for middle-income Americans. He would try to clamp down on rising costs with tax credits, expanded government programs like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and changes to insurance laws to require coverage for all regardless of pre-existing conditions or other factors. And he would create nonprofit purchasing pools -- across a small area or maybe even several states -- so that consumers would have a way to buy an affordable and high quality plan. Finally, he would require every citizen to get coverage, unless they have financial or religious exemptions. Those who don't would forfeit their personal exemption on their income tax return. US: Iraqi lawmaker is embassy bomber A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the US and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri a ... |
| pollingreport.com/health3.htm Science and Nature Data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older. Health Care Delivery NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart and Bill McInturff . "Within the past year, the governors of Massachusetts and California have put forward plans to require all residents in their states to have health insurance coverage. For example, the plan in Massachusetts would require residents with higher incomes to pay for coverage and state funding that would be used to help cover residents with lower incomes. Do you think it is a good idea or bad idea to do this for the entire country?" "Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: I would be willing to pay higher taxes so that everyone can have health insurance." Agree Disagree Unsure % % % 1/17-20/07 53 40 7 3/93 66 30 4 6/91 47 48 4 Associated Press-AOL News Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. "Do you favor or oppose the federal government making it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from other countries?" Favor Oppose Unsure % % % 12/19-21/06 69 28 3 Gallup Poll. Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Unsure % % % % % "The quality of health care in this country" 11/9-12/06 16 37 32 14 1 11/7-10/05 16 37 33 14 - 11/7-10/04 20 39 28 12 1 11/3-5/03 18 42 28 12 - 11/11-14/02 14 41 32 12 1 11/8-11/01 15 38 34 12 1 . "Health care coverage in this country" 11/9-12/06 6 19 41 33 1 11/7-10/05 2 19 43 35 1 11/7-10/04 4 26 41 29 - 11/3-5/03 5 23 42 29 1 11/11-14/02 4 26 41 27 2 11/8-11/01 5 25 43 26 1 . "Which of these statements do you think best describes the US health care system today? State of Crisis Major Problems Minor Problems No Problems Unsure % % % % % 11/9-12/06 16 55 25 3 1 11/7-10/05 18 52 28 1 1 11/7-10/04 14 53 31 2 - 11/3-5/03 14 54 30 1 1 11/11-14/02 11 54 32 2 1 11/8-11/01 5 44 47 2 2 9/11-13/00 12 58 28 1 1 . "Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?" Is Is Not Unsure % % % 11/9-12/06 69 28 3 11/7-10/05 58 38 4 11/7-10/04 64 34 2 11/3-5/03 59 39 2 11/11-14/02 62 35 3 11/8-11/01 62 34 4 9/11-13/00 64 31 5 1/13-16/00 59 38 3 . "Which of the following approaches for providing health care in the United States would you prefer: replacing the current health care system with a new government run health care system, or maintaining the current system based mostly on private health insurance?" Replace Maintain Unsure % % % 11/9-12/06 39 51 10 11/7-10/05 41 49 10 11/7-10/04 32 63 5 11/3-5/03 38 57 5 11/8-11/01 33 61 6 ABC News/Washington Post Poll. "As you may know, a new law in Massachusetts would require all residents to have health insurance. Low-income residents would get state subsidies to help pay insurance premiums, but everyone would pay something for health services. The plan would penalize people without any insurance and charge fees to employers who don't provide coverage. " MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS: "Do you support or oppose this plan?" NON-MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS: "Would you support or oppose this plan in your state?" Support Oppose Unsure % % % ALL adults 55 41 5 Democrats 58 37 5 Independents 58 39 3 Republicans 49 46 5 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. "As I read from a list, tell me whether or not the item I read is a major problem for you and your family. Is this a major problem for you or not a major problem?" "Paying for the cost of routine medical care" 3/8-12/06 38 61 1 . "Paying for the cost of a major illness" 3/8-12/06 54 44 2 . "The availability of medical care in your community" 3/8-12/06 25 74 1 . "The quality of hospital care in your community" 3/8-12/06 26 71 3 . "Paying for the costs of prescription drugs" 3/8-12/06 44 55 1 . "Thinking about the country as a whole: Do you think the government spends too much, too little or the right amount on health care?" Too Much Too Little Right Amount Unsure % % % % 3/8-12/06 11 70 11 8 . "Thinking about the country as a whole: Do you think the average American spends too much, too little or the right amount on health care?" Too Much Too Little Right Amount Unsure % % % % 3/8-12/06 65 17 12 6 CBS News/New York Times Poll. "Which of the following three statements comes closest to expressing your overall view of the health care system in the United States? On the whole, the health care system works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better. OR, There are some good things in our health care system, but fundamental changes are needed. OR, Our health care system has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it." Minor Changes Fundamental Changes Completely Rebuild Unsure % % % % 1/20-25/06 8 56 34 2 . "Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?" Should Guarantee Not Their Responsibility Unsure % % % 1/20-25/06 62 31 7 . "How concerned are you about the health care costs you are facing now or will face in the future: a lot, some, not much, or not at all?" A Lot Some Not Much Not At All % % % % 1/20-25/06 61 26 8 5 CBS News/New York Times Poll. "How concerned are you about not being able to pay medical costs for a serious illness or an accident: very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?" Very Concerned Somewhat Concerned Not Very Concerned Not At All Concerned Unsure % % % % % ALL adults 34 25 18 22 1 Republicans 19 25 24 31 1 Democrats 43 25 16 15 1 Independents 38 25 15 22 0 Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. "Overall, how confident are you in the safety of prescription drugs sold in the United States? Would you say you are very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?" Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Too Confident Not at All Confident Unsure % % % % % 12/17-19/04 36 48 10 5 1 . "The US Food and Drug Administration is responsible for ensuring the safety of prescription drugs in the United States. How confident are you in the ability of the US Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of prescription drugs sold in the United States? Would you say you are very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?" Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Too Confident Not at All Confident % % % % 12/17-19/04 27 50 16 7 Gallup Poll. "Thinking again about health care in the country as a whole: Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in this country?" Satisfied Dissatisfied Unsure % % % 11/04 21 78 1 11/03 20 79 1 11/02 22 75 3 11/01 28 71 1 . "Your health care coverage" 11/04 28 41 20 7 4 11/03 22 44 23 6 5 11/02 20 51 17 7 5 11/01 22 46 20 6 6 . "Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the total cost you pay for your health care?" Satisfied Dissatisfied Unsure % % % 11/04 58 41 1 11/03 57 41 2 11/02 58 39 3 11/01 64 33 3 ABC News/Washington Post Poll. "Thinking about health care in the country as a whole, are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of health care in this country?" "Canada has a universal health care system run by the government that covers all people. Compared to Canada, do you think the overall health care system in the United States is better, worse or about the same?" "Have you or has anyone in your household ever bought prescription drugs from Canada or from another foreign country in order to get a better price, or not?" "Some people say it should be legal for Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada, Europe, and other industrialized countries because they'e less expensive. The US Food and Drug Administration says it should be illegal because imported drugs may be less safe and effective. Should it be legal or illegal for Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada, Europe, and other industrialized countries?" "Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down... |
| abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html Health Care Americans by a 2-1 margin prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied. Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States -- the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000. Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and costs -- a situation that tends to encourage a cautious approach to change. While the system is seen to have gaps, flaws and an uncertain future, it's also seen to work for most people. 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. Still, cost concerns are prompting some evasive action: Nearly one in four Americans, 23 percent, say they or someone in their family put off medical treatment in the last year because of the cost. In addition to universal coverage, there are other areas in which the public favors change. Nearly seven in 10 say it should be legal to buy prescription drugs from foreign countries, despite the FDA's safety qualms. Three-quarters favor the $400 billion plan to cover prescription drugs in Medicare; Most also favor the creation of HMO-based Medicare options that cover prescription drugs but limit the choice of doctors. There's long been a schism in concern about health care costs: Most Americans are dissatisfied with the costs of the system overall, and apprehensive about their future expenses -- but satisfied with their own current costs. In this poll, 64 percent of insured people remain satisfied with their own health care costs -- a sizable majority, but down from a high of 75 percent in a 1995 ABCNEWS poll. Fifty-nine percent of insured Americans are worried about being able to continue to afford health insurance in the future (a quarter are "very" worried). This doesn't include those who currently lack health coverage -- 17 percent of adults in this survey. Two-thirds of insured Americans say their health insurance premiums have been going up lately; Fewer but still a sizable number, 44 percent, say their deductibles and co-pays have been rising. Most people don't blame their employer: Among those who have employer-supported plans, just about a quarter say their employer is paying less of the cost of their coverage. As noted above, 54 percent of Americans are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in this country, up from 44 percent in 2000. Notably, that includes 52 percent of insured Americans, as well as 67 percent of those who lack insurance. Directions and Income Gaps The structure, fairness and direction of the current system raise concerns as well. Fifty-three percent of privately insured Americans are worried about losing their insurance because of the loss of a job (three in 10, "very" worried). And the ranks of the uninsured -- up last year, according to the Census Bureau -- prompt some alarm: Eighty percent (up from 71 percent in 1999) say it's more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people uncovered. In terms of the future, 64 percent of Americans think the country is headed toward a system of rationed health care, in which an increasing number of treatments won't be covered because they're too costly, not essential or have too little chance of success. And nearly eight in 10 oppose those kinds of restrictions. As to be expected in a primarily employer-based program, there is a huge income gap in insurance haves vs. Among Americans with household incomes of $50,000 a year or more, just eight percent are uninsured. Among those with incomes under $50,000, the number of uninsured swells to one in five. Among just those with incomes under $20,000, it grows to nearly one in three. Similarly, lower-income Americans are much less apt to have private insurance. Among those with incomes under $20,000, just 30 percent have private insurance; the rest have government-based coverage (Medicare or Medicaid), or none. Among people in $50,000-plus households, by contrast, 83 percent are privately insured. All the concerns cited above underlie the public's interest in universal care. This poll asks people what they'd prefer -- a "universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers," or "the current system, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance." one last year asked if people would support or oppose "a national health plan, financed by taxpayers, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan," and found 40 percent support. The wording in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll weighs the proposal against the current system, and adds the Medicare model to the description. this poll asks about universal health after a long and probing series of questions on the current system. As noted, support for this universal system is conditional. If it limited Americans' choice of doctors, support drops sharply, from 62 percent to 35 percent. Likewise, if it meant waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments, support falls to 39 percent. There also are political and ideological aspects to views on universal health. Democrats favor it by more than 3-1, and liberals by 6-1, while Republicans and conservatives divide evenly. The current system is preferred by a majority (52 percent) in one group: People with household incomes over $100,000 a year. Comparisons With Canada's Health System Views of the government-run universal health system in Canada also show the public's interest in such a system. Suspending customary chauvinism, just 29 percent of Americans think the overall US health care system is better than Canada's; There are distinctions on particular aspects of the two systems. Americans by 34-16 percent are more apt to say the US system offers better quality of care. But by 18-41 percent they say the US system is worse when it comes to cost; and by a narrower 27-34 percent they see the US system as worse in terms of availability of coverage. As noted, personal experience with the current system is positive, which serves to temper all these concerns. Among all Americans -- even those who lack coverage -- large majorities express satisfaction with their quality of health care (85 percent), ability to see a doctor (83 percent), ability to see good specialists (78 percent) and ability to get the most sophisticated treatments (77 percent). Among uninsured Americans these ratings are lower -- but, perhaps surprisingly, still mostly positive: Sixty-nine percent rate the quality of their health care positively; There are areas in which public views do not support some criticisms of the current system; one is the suggestion that it's too complex to understand. Instead, 83 percent of insured Americans say they are familiar with the terms and conditions of their plan (although fewer, 36 percent, are "very" familiar with these). Similarly, among those who have a choice of plans (57 percent), eight in 10 again say they are familiar with the options available to them. In another area, most insured people don't report persistent problems collecting on their claims. Eighty percent say their pla... |
| www.csua.org/u/i08 -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html Renae Merle Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 5, 2006; Page D01 There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the US military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield. The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under US government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country. A Blackwater contractor who asked to be identified only as Rich rides in a South African anti-mine vehicle on the dangerous Baghdad Airport route. A Blackwater contractor who asked to be identified only as Rich rides in a South African anti-mine vehicle on the dangerous Baghdad Airport route. Facebook It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers. Official numbers are difficult to find, said Deborah D Avant, author of the 2005 book "The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security," but an estimated 9,200 contractors deployed during the Gulf War, a far shorter conflict without reconstruction projects. "This is the largest deployment of US contractors in a military operation," said Avant, an associate professor at George Washington University. In addition to about 140,000 US troops, Iraq is now filled with a hodgepodge of contractors. DynCorp International has about 1,500 employees in Iraq, including about 700 helping train the police force. Blackwater USA has more than 1,000 employees in the country, most of them providing private security. Kellogg, Brown and Root, one of the largest contractors in Iraq, said it does not delineate its workforce by country but that it has more than 50,000 employees and subcontractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. MPRI, a unit of L-3 Communications, has about 500 employees working on 12 contracts, including providing mentors to the Iraqi Defense Ministry for strategic planning, budgeting and establishing its public affairs office. Titan, another L-3 division, has 6,500 linguists in the country. The Pentagon's latest estimate "further demonstrates the need for Congress to finally engage in responsible, serious and aggressive oversight over the questionable and growing US practice of private military contracting," said Rep. About 650 contractors have died in Iraq since 2003, according to Labor Department statistics. Central Command, which conducted the census, said a breakdown by nationality or job description was not immediately available because the project is still in its early stages. "This is the first time we have initiated a census of this robustness," Lt. Julie Wittkoff, chief of the contracting branch at Central Command, said in an interview. Those figures do not include subcontractors, which could substantially grow the figure. In June, government agencies were asked to provide data about contractors working for them in Iraq, including their nationality, a description of their work and locations where they were working. The information was provided by more than a dozen entities within the Pentagon and a dozen outside agencies, including the departments of State and Interior, Wittkoff said. The count increased about 15 percent from about 87,000 since Central Command began keeping a tally this summer, she said, though the increase may reflect ongoing data collection efforts. Three years into the war, the headcount represents one of the Pentagon's most concrete efforts so far toward addressing the complexities and questions raised by the large numbers of civilians who have flooded into Iraq to work. With few industry standards, the military and contractors have sometimes lacked coordination, resulting in friendly fire incidents, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. "It takes a great deal of vigilance on the part of the military commander to ensure contractor compliance," said William L Nash, a retired Army general and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you're trying to win hearts and minds and the contractor is driving 90 miles per hour through the streets and running over kids, that's not helping the image of the American army. The Iraqis aren't going to distinguish between a contractor and a soldier." The census gives military commanders insight into the contractors operating in their region and the type of work they are doing, Wittkoff said. "It helps the combatant commanders have a better idea of . food and medical requirements they may need to provide to support the contractors," she said. Top 35 Most Viewed Post a Comment Comments: (Limit 5,000 characters) Post Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. |
| www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba369 -> www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba369/ Central to this argument is the belief that user fees and the profit motive, both salient features of a private health system, favor the wealthy and are unfair to the poor. Advocates of national health care have frequently cited perceived successes in Western Europes social welfare states. But recently, policy-makers in Stockholm, the capital of Europes most heavily socialized Scandinavian state, began implementing market-style reforms that may deprive national health care proponents of their favorite example. Between 1992 and 1994, even as the advocates of Hillarycare in the United States were calling for wider government control of health care resources, the Health Services Council in Stockholm began contracting health services to private companies as part of an experiment to determine whether the private sector could perform better than the citys public health institutions. The result was an internal market - a system of private health care providers within the larger public-financed system. Much of the pressure to experiment with privatization came from European Union regulations that forced reduced public taxation in Sweden. To function in a lower tax environment, Stockholm turned to the private sector with three goals in mind: * To remove the public monopoly on the delivery of health care services. For decades, Stockholm relied on an underperforming civic health service monopoly characterized by long waiting lists, chronic overspending and flagging quality. Since the experiment began, virtually every sector of Stockholms health system has undergone some form of privatization: * Initially, the experiment included 150 private providers who were licensed to compete for health service contracts. Grans, one of Swedens largest hospitals, was sold to the private company Capio AB. By the end of the experiments first five years, all but one of the original 150 private contractors had survived and were flourishing. Likewise, by the end of the first year of its privatization, St. Grans had shown significant improvements over its performance as a public facility. A study conducted for the Stockholm government compared the costs of services in six medical specialties between physicians in 40 private practices and 20 public hospital outpatient clinics, and found the cost per consultation to be lower in private practice. For example: * In ophthalmology, costs in the public sector were 28 percent higher. In addition, private nursing home costs have fallen 30 percent, and the costs of care among private specialists have been cut by 40 percent. Savings have been even more dramatic in the hospital sector. Grans, costs for lab and X-ray services, for example, have fallen by 50 percent, and overall costs are down 30 percent. For many types of treatment, doctors in the private sector have reduced expenses to levels 15 percent lower than the same procedures would cost in the public sector. One result of decentralizing and divorcing health care providers from bureaucratic control in Stockholm has been that private sector companies have been able to introduce simple, professional management structures that enable doctors to spend less time on paperwork and more time with patients. This change has, in turn, increased productivity in several key areas. Most importantly, it has drastically reduced waiting times for treatment by increasing the number of patients being served. Grans: * The average wait for heart surgery is two weeks, compared to 15 - 25 weeks in Swedens average public sector hospital. Grans is now treating an average of 100,000 more patients each year than it did as a public hospital - but using fewer resources. Grans success, the Council now has formal plans to sell all seven remaining public emergency hospitals in Stockholm to private investors. Today in Stockholm, the trend toward privatization of all health services is accelerating. Emboldened by the experiments success, in 2000 the Council licensed 150 additional health care contractors to leave public ownership. By that same year, over 60 percent of the Councils planned privatization of primary care had been completed. Altogether, when the second wave of privatization is complete, private general practitioners and other contractors will provide more than 40 percent of all health care services and 100 percent of primary care. Nonetheless, wholesale privatization of health care is still in the distant future. Although the system in Stockholm, which covers about two million of Swedens 88 million people, is funded in part by user fees, most of the funding still comes from the government. However, the successful use of private contractors as health care providers may encourage the replacement of government financing with private funding. According to Johan Hjertqvist, health policy adviser to the Greater Stockholm Council, the die is cast for a system that, within the next decade, will rely more heavily on user fees and private insurance and may turn to the use of patient vouchers. If these changes occur, patients in Stockholm would be given vouchers that would allow them to choose among competing health care providers. Although the vouchers would be publicly funded, they would be an important step toward empowering the citys patients as consumers. While opponents of the privatization reforms had predicted that the private sector, by seeking to make a profit for shareholders, would drive costs up and efficiency standards down, the opposite has in fact been true. Across the board, private contractors in Stockholm are operating with less staff on smaller budgets, while providing the same treatments to more patients than their public counterparts. As a pilot program for testing the potential effects of competitive market mechanisms on public health care systems, Stockholms internal market has proven the ability of the private sector to dramatically outperform state-administered facilities by reducing costs, improving care and saving lives. A Wess Mitchell is the Russell and Phoebe Perry Policy Intern with the National Center for Policy Analysis. |
| www.cato.org/dailys/9-23-96.html Cato Audio September 23, 1996 A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine by Michael Tanner Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute. Europeans are now learning some hard facts of life about socialized medicine: there's no such thing as a free lunch. The question is whether Congress will learn from Europe's mistakes as it takes the next steps in reforming the American health care system. For many years advocates of government-run health care pointed to Europe as an ideal, noting that America was the "only industrialized country without a national health care system." Now, however, the European welfare states are slashing benefits in the face of rising health care costs. A recent front-page story in the New York Times detailed the European cutbacks. According to the article, Britain, France and Germany are all being forced to limit access to care. The Europeans have run into a very simple economic rule. If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it. Think of it this way: if food were free, would you eat hamburger or steak? There are only so many doctors, so many hospital beds and so much technology. If people overconsume those resources, it drives up the cost of health care. The same problem is besetting the American health care system. The vast majority of American health care is not directly paid for by the person consuming those goods and services. Instead, a third party, either the government or an insurance company, pays the bill. Medicare beneficiaries pay almost nothing out of their own pockets for health care. Under Medicare Part B, for example, the deductible is an absurdly low $100. There is also a copayment required for hospitalization of longer than 60 days. However, nearly 70 percent of the elderly have some form of "medigap" insurance that covers all or part of the deductibles and copayments. Thus, recipients have little incentive to be good consumers and avoid unnecessary expenses or seek the best deal for their dollar. Guy King, former chief actuary for the Health Care Financing Administration, says that third-party payment is one of the primary causes of the rapid growth in Medicare expenditures. As King explains, "When people, either patients or doctors, are spending other people's money, they do not worry about the cost or number of services consumed." The establishment has responded to this problem by trying to force seniors into managed care, thereby allowing insurance companies to ration care. But managed care does not change the underlying incentive structure created by pervasive third-party payment. Any reduction in costs is achieved by limiting access to treatment. A report by the Department of Health and Human Services' inspector general found "pervasive" quality problems throughout managed care programs for Medicare, including difficulties in gaining access to care. Managed care programs are significantly less likely to use diagnostic tests, such as MRI and CAT scans, than are fee-for-service plans. Doctors report that managed care organizations pressure them to save money even at the cost of quality. One-third of doctors surveyed by the American Medical Association in 1988 stated that patients were harmed by delays or nontreatment as a result of managed care. Although the election season has temporarily taken Medicare off the table, the issue will be back to haunt the president and Congress next year. Indeed, the most recent report of the Medicare system's Board of Trustees warns that the program faces bankruptcy in just five years. The question is whether we will recognize the problems of third-party payment and restore consumer incentives by increasing deductibles and allowing recipients to choose medical savings accounts or follow the European example and ration the health care that our seniors depend on. For years we've been told to look to Europe for lessons about health care. |
| www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=855 James Frogue and Robert Moffit (December 25, 2000) Imagine a world in which you're forbidden to spend your own money to obtain medical care. Imagine that, regardless of your personal needs, you're forced to rely on the government for health care, no matter how long it takes or how substandard it may be. That's precisely how the Canadian health-care system operates. often tout as a model for the United States --and one that, absent serious reform enacted early next year by the new Bush administration and Congress, could fairly be labeled the Ghost of Health Care Future. A fierce debate broke out during their recent elections over whether citizens living in the provinces of Quebec and Alberta should be allowed to spend their own money to purchase MRI scans. And in the remaining three provinces, private payment is all but forbidden. Unfortunately, the lucky few in Alberta and Quebec may not stay that way for long. The only reason province officials have been allowing citizens to pay for their own MRIs is because they're still not sure whether Canada's central government considers the scans "medically necessary," the vague standard that determines what is or is not a "covered service." CAT scans and EEGs, for instance, are considered medically necessary, and therefore cannot be purchased privately in Canada. This is apparently fine by recently re-elected Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Arguing that private payment might somehow be unfair to Canadians who cannot afford to pay for MRI scans, he's threatened to withhold $1 billion from Alberta and Quebec until they shut down their private clinics. Never mind that the waiting list in Quebec to get government-funded MRIs is now 15 months. Not surprisingly, half of the province's MRI scans are done privately. If the 10 clinics that perform them were shut down, it would leave only five MRI machines for all of Quebec's 73 million residents. They can wait in line for treatment (which, depending on where they live or what the procedure is, typically takes weeks or even months). They can use personal connections for expedited, but illegal, medical attention. Or they can travel across the border to the United States to get the care they need. Needless to say, only the rich can choose from the latter two options. As Mark Steyn, a columnist for Canada's National Post, wryly notes, Canada's got "all the coerciveness of the Cuban system, with none of the efficiency." Many Americans will be tempted to think this couldn't happen here. During the balanced-budget debate of 1997, the Clinton administration pressured Congress to adopt a provision that restricts Medicare patients from spending their own money on medical services. A Medicare patient can legally contract privately for a "covered" Medicare service if, and only if, his or her doctor agrees to drop out of Medicare, and give up all other Medicare patients, for two full years -- an unlikely proposition, to say the least. In 1999, an unusual coalition of senior-citizen groups and the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the constitutionality of this provision in federal court as a violation of personal liberty and privacy. Lawyers for the Clinton administration sounded suspiciously like Canadian officials, arguing that it would be unfair to allow patients to go outside of the Medicare system to buy better care at a higher price. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that a Medicare patient could pay a doctor privately for a medical service as long as the federal government considers the medical service both " unnecessary" and not "unwarranted." Bottom line: American seniors --today, now -- can't simply do what they want with their own money when it comes to health care. But stopping any class of Americans from spending their own money on medical services, on terms and conditions that seem right to them and to their doctors, is a profound violation of personal freedom. It also illustrates why the next president and Congress should make every effort to reform Medicare -- before Canada's methods spread beyond Medicare and infect us all. |