Americans want universal health coverage, group says

[atxrocker]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/07/universal.coverage.ap/index.html


Americans want universal health coverage, group says
Report doesn't say who would pay for such a plan, or its cost

Wednesday, June 7, 2006; Posted: 11:05 p.m. EDT (03:05 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government should guarantee that all Americans have basic health insurance coverage, says a committee set up by Congress to find out what people want when it comes to health care.

"Assuring health care is a shared social responsibility," says the interim report of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, a 14-member committee that went to 50 communities and heard from 23,000 people.

The committee describes its recommendations as a framework. The recommendations don't say who would pay for universal health coverage or how much it would cost. The concept of government-guaranteed coverage runs counter to the Bush administration's position that consumers should bear more responsibility for their initial medical expenses.

The group's findings will be officially presented to the president and Congress in the fall, but first comes 90 days of public comment. The president will submit to Congress his response, and then five congressional committees will hold hearings.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, said he and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, came up with the idea for establishing a group that would work outside of Washington to find out what Americans want. He said they were tired of years of gridlock on health care issues.

"We decided, let's try something else. Let's go to the public and give them a chance, not in terms of writing a bill, but let them provide a kind of general roadmap where the country ought to head," Wyden said.

Wyden said he will wait to hear the public's comments on the report before reaching any conclusions about the findings. However, some groups are already wary.

"It implies massive new funding sources, massive new laws would be needed," said Sarah Berk, executive director of Health Care America, an advocacy group that pushes free market approaches to health coverage. "We want universal access, but this report just pushes all the difficult problems onto somebody else's plate. It says government needs to do it all."

George Grob, the executive director of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, said the group was not asked to say specifically how to get to universal coverage. However, the group did recommend that financing strategies be based on principles of fairness and shared responsibility. The strategies should draw on revenue streams such as enrollee contributions, income taxes, so-called "sin taxes" and payroll taxes, the report said.

"We're already paying for health care for everybody who gets it, including people who don't have health insurance coverage who are taken care of when they go to the hospital," Grob said.

The group's stated values and principals were as important as the recommendations, Grob said. Those principals said all Americans should have a set of health coverage benefits guaranteed by law. Those benefits should be "portable and independent of health status, working status, age (and) income," the report said.

Congress passed the bill creating the Citizens' Health Care Working Group in late 2003. The same bill created a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Congress approved $5.5 million to fund the group's work, which began in February of last year. The group consisted of 14 members representing consumers, the disabled, business and labor, and health care providers.

[SPARKY]

Report doesn't say who would pay for such a plan, or its cost

Surprise, surprise.

[Vashner]

1. Britan's heal care system is going down the toilet right now. You can't get good fast service. If you want a dentist.. forget it you better be rich..

2. Canada's system is not much better.

3. Just go to Mexico and come back pretending to be a migrant and get a stolen Social Security number.. that way you can get free medical.. just go to emergency room.. get treated then split.. and throw away any bills you get later.

[fyatuk]

1. Britan's heal care system is going down the toilet right now. You can't get good fast service. If you want a dentist.. forget it you better be rich..

2. Canada's system is not much better.


Well, those are actualy national health care systems. I think it might be better to go with a different insurance system.

Say, allow cities to act as groups to purchase insurance (or counties, whatever). Subsidize them a little bit with federal, state, and city taxes, as well as employer contributions, etc.

[boutons_]

The US pays much more for much less health care delivery than any other comparable country. How is that not broken?

Health care industry is all about $$$, not about health care.

The 100s of $Bs collected by the health care industry are more than enough to buy enough politicians to vote what is best for the health care industry profits, NOT what is best for delivering health care to Americans.

So, stay bent over while the HC industry empties your pockets ($10K year for health insurance for a family of four,and buggers you for the indefinite future, totally indifferent to whatever Americans want. They won't get it.

=====================

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Health Insurance Cost

This document is also available as a printable .pdf file.
Health Insurance Cost

Facts on the Cost of Health Care

Introduction

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our history.

In 2004 (the latest year data are available), total national health expenditures rose 7.9 percent -- over three times the rate of inflation (1). Total spending was $1.9 TRILLION in 2004, or $6,280 per person (1). Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4 TRILLION in 2015, or 20 percent of GDP (2).

In 2005, employer health insurance premiums increased by 9.2 percent - nearly three times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,000. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,000 (3).

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

National Health Care Spending

* In 2004, health care spending in the United States reached $1.9 trillion, and was projected to reach $2.9 trillion in 2009 (2).

* Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense (4).

* In 2004, the United States spent 16 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent in the next decade (2).

* Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens. (4)

* Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (5)

Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs

* Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 9.2 percent in 2005, the fifth consecutive year of increases over 9 percent. All types of health plans -- including health maintenance organizations (HMOs), preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and point-of-service plans (POS) -- showed this increase (3).

* The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $10,800 in 2005. Workers contributed $2,713, or 10 percent more than they did in 2004 (3).The annual premiums for family coverage eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).

* Workers are now paying $1,094 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 2000 (3).

* Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 73 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 14 percent and cumulative wage growth of 15 percent during the same period (3).

* Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by 2008 (6).

* According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising five times faster on average than workers' earnings since 2000 (3).

* The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 143 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period (7).

* The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, exceeds $2,000 a year rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 - a 16 percent increase (8).

The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs


* National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage (9).

* Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage (10).

* Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of the uninsured reported changing their way of life significantly in order to pay medical bills (10).

* Almost 50 percent of the American public say they are very worried about having to pay more for their health care or health insurance, while 42 percent report they are very worried about not being able to afford health care services (11).

* A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses (12). Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

* One half of workers in the lowest-compensation jobs and one-half of workers in mid-range-compensation jobs either had problems with medical bills in a 12-month period or were paying off accrued debt. One-quarter of workers in higher-compensated positions also reported problems with medical bills or were paying off accrued debt (13).

* If one member of a family is uninsured and has an accident, a hospital stay, or a costly medical treatment, the resulting medical bills can affect the economic stability of the whole family (14).

* A new survey shows that more than 25 percent said that housing problems resulted from medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the development of bad credit ratings (15).

* A survey of Iowa consumers found that in order to cope with rising health insurance costs, 86 percent said they had cut back on how much they could save, and 44 percent said that they have cut back on food and heating expenses (16).

* Retiring elderly couples will need $200,000 in savings just to pay for the most basic medical coverage (17). Many experts believe that this figure is conservative and that $300,000 may be a more realistic number.

etc ...

[SPARKY]

The US has the highest quality of care available in the world. Rising costs are a function of a variety of variables, but I will say it's best to ask yourself: is the health care market anywhere close to being a free market? Another question: why do so many rely on their employer for providing health insurance?

Health care is just like any other market. The greater the government intervention the greater the propensity for it to be fucked up. Of course, that intervention can come as the result of differing aims, be it to increase health insurance coverage or to decrease competition for health care providers, pharmaceutical firms, etc...

[boutons_]

"The US has the highest quality of care available in the world"

Reserved only to those who can afford it. 10s of millions have no insurance, and therefore do not obtain the basic health care (not 5-star luxury health care) they need.

"Health care is just like any other market."

Exactly, like any other commercial activity, the objective is profit, not delivering product, which is seen as necessary evil to be minimized in order to increase profits.

The health care industry spends 15% to 30% of its operating costs figuring out how NOT to deliver "product" aka health care, pushing paper, dis/qualifying customers, etc, etc.

15% of $2T annually is $300B wasted, every fucking year, fucking around NOT delivering health care. Guess who gets to pay for the $300B?

"The greater the government intervention the greater the propensity for it to be fucked up"

The question is: Can Americans elect politicians who will design and administer a national health care system that will be less fucked up than the current US health care system?

I convinced the answer is no, because Americans are disenfranchised by the $$$ spent by corps and organizations to buy politicians.

Direct elections are total bullshit propping up the myth that voting makes a difference, that indiviual citizens' votes have any impact on how "business" is done in government.

[SPARKY]

"The US has the highest quality of care available in the world"

Reserved only to those who can afford it. 10s of millions have no insurance, and therefore do not obtain the basic health care (not 5-star luxury health care) they need.

So we're back to why the market is f'ed up.




"Health care is just like any other market."

Exactly, like any other commercial activity, the objective is profit, not delivering product, which is seen as necessary evil to be minimized in order to increase profits.

Then let's have the state take over the provision of food and every other vital service due to that.



The health care industry spends 15% to 30% of its operating costs figuring out how NOT to deliver "product" aka health care, pushing paper, dis/qualifying customers, etc, etc.

15% of $2T annually is $300B wasted, every fucking year, fucking around NOT delivering health care. Guess who gets to pay for the $300B?


How much of that operating cost is tied to complying with federal and state regulations and programs such as Medicaid and Medicare?




"The greater the government intervention the greater the propensity for it to be fucked up"

The question is: Can Americans elect politicians who will design and administer a national health care system that will be less fucked up than the current US health care system?

I convinced the answer is no, because Americans are disenfranchised by the $$$ spent by corps and organizations to buy politicians.

Direct elections are total bullshit propping up the myth that voting makes a difference, that indiviual citizens' votes have any impact on how "business" is done in government.

The problem with health care costs in this country is that the vast majority depend on their employers to provide them coverage. That is due to the tax treatment of health care benefits. Of course, employers want to keep that expense down. Those who are covered don't have an incentive to economize on health care because they are paying a fraction of its true cost. The problem isn't that hard to identify. The problem is that some ignore it and want to focus on tertiary "problems".

[fyatuk]

"The US has the highest quality of care available in the world"

Reserved only to those who can afford it. 10s of millions have no insurance, and therefore do not obtain the basic health care (not 5-star luxury health care) they need.


Heh, more people need to be like me and just refuse to go to doctors anyway. I've spent maybe 2k in medical expenses in 10 years, and tha majority of that was when I suffered a back injury ;)

What health care is needed is highly debateable. Now granted, its logical to assume that something needs to happen so people can afford the basic health care the government itself recommends.

The funny thing is, most people would be far better off saving the money they pay for health insurance premiums and using the savings to pay for medical costs. Especially if the employers kicked in their share to the savings as well.

[fyatuk]

The problem with health care costs in this country is that the vast majority depend on their employers to provide them coverage. That is due to the tax treatment of health care benefits. Of course, employers want to keep that expense down. Those who are covered don't have an incentive to economize on health care because they are paying a fraction of its true cost. The problem isn't that hard to identify. The problem is that some ignore it and want to focus on tertiary "problems".

That's not THE problem. There are a whole mess of problems. Rising costs of education, constantly changing technology that is consistently replaced, extremely high medical liability premiums (due to generous juries,frivolous lawsuits, and other things, the premiums are often more per year than the education was, especially for surgeons), etc.

Mostly the problems end up back at "capitalism". Doctors want to make money, schools want to make money, insurance carriers want to make money, employers want to make money, and patients want to make money. It just adds up.

Lawsuit reform and controlling education costs would go a long way towards lowering overall costs. As would changing the way insurance works to around employers.

[SPARKY]

That's not THE problem. There are a whole mess of problems. Rising costs of education, constantly changing technology that is consistently replaced, extremely high medical liability premiums (due to generous juries,frivolous lawsuits, and other things, the premiums are often more per year than the education was, especially for surgeons), etc.

It is the major problem.




Mostly the problems end up back at "capitalism". Doctors want to make money, schools want to make money, insurance carriers want to make money, employers want to make money, and patients want to make money. It just adds up.

Let's do away with "capitalism" then.



Lawsuit reform and controlling education costs would go a long way towards lowering overall costs. As would changing the way insurance works to around employers.


Controlling education costs how?

Lawsuit reform? Are we going to make it more difficult for those with legit claims to get justice?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Reserved only to those who can afford it.

So, what's your solution? If your liberal lawyers weren't sueing everyone under the sun, doctors wouldn't be paying 50K a year for liability insurance.

Name one country where socialistic welfare has worked on the face of the earth.

[fyatuk]

It is the major problem.

It's one of the major problems.


Let's do away with "capitalism" then.

Hey, I'm in favor of socializing energy production, health care, mass transit, and a few other things. Not a complete socialism though, just a few key industries.

BUT, when you do away with doctors ability to make a huge amount of money, you end up with crappier doctors, or at least less doctors.


Controlling education costs how?

Good question. It's the second biggest issue I'd like politicians to find a solution for (the biggest being social security). It something that definitely needs to be addressed somehow. I can suggest an answer since I've never looked at the accounts of a college before, so I don't know where fat can be trimmed, etc. But considering the same classes I took 10 years ago would cost 2-3 times as much today, that's insane.


Lawsuit reform? Are we going to make it more difficult for those with legit claims to get justice?

Depends on what you mean by justice. I don't think someone should get 30 times actual damages in a lawsuit. No lawsuit should ever give more than 2-3 times the actual damages (I'm not talking just medical here either). Juries in general have gone insane with their awards.

[xrayzebra]

"The US has the highest quality of care available in the world"

Reserved only to those who can afford it. 10s of millions have no insurance, and therefore do not obtain the basic health care (not 5-star luxury health care) they need.

"Health care is just like any other market."

Exactly, like any other commercial activity, the objective is profit, not delivering product, which is seen as necessary evil to be minimized in order to increase profits.

The health care industry spends 15% to 30% of its operating costs figuring out how NOT to deliver "product" aka health care, pushing paper, dis/qualifying customers, etc, etc.

15% of $2T annually is $300B wasted, every fucking year, fucking around NOT delivering health care. Guess who gets to pay for the $300B?

"The greater the government intervention the greater the propensity for it to be fucked up"

The question is: Can Americans elect politicians who will design and administer a national health care system that will be less fucked up than the current US health care system?

I convinced the answer is no, because Americans are disenfranchised by the $$$ spent by corps and organizations to buy politicians.

Direct elections are total bullshit propping up the myth that voting makes a difference, that indiviual citizens' votes have any impact on how "business" is done in government.

So move to Mass. Everyone there is going to have
health insurance or be fined. You will be so happy amongst
all the other liberals. You will fit right in. Have good trip,
hear!