Sadly, insured patients have become the guinea pig to foot the bill for millions of uninsureds sucking the system dry and they are just about getting doctored 2 death in the process.

TheAngryPatient.com is a web diary about one patients nightmare incarceration in a hospital.

Compare THAT to 100% coverage given to citizens in other leading nations

I feel socialized healthcare would work in the US. We have enough money to fight a war on oil, and if we cut that spending by 10% millions of americans will receive healthcare. Dont even get me started on the FDA and prescription drugs.

“We have enough money to fight a war on oil”

No we don’t.

Take a look at our national debt. FYI, we have no money. We have borrowed time.

Socialized health-care has serious flaws also.

The fact remains: NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, THEY CANNOT CLOSE THE GAP RELATING LONGEVITY TO INCOME! Even in countries with fully socialized health care, the disparity between income and longevity exists.

I like the fact, that I’m a more educated individual, that I have better health care than someone working in a blue collar job. It gives me more insentive to pursue my education, and it gives other people that insentive too.

Why do all liberals wish they lived in Europe? Why don’t they just move there?

Let’s pause here for a moment and consider what the Northerners are proposing. What they are saying is that they want to radically change the way labour is handled in this country because 1 person in 8 is black. That is, they want to force 7 out of 8 people to change their plantations to accommodate that one slave. A tyranny of the minority.

Ugh, if you want to prove your case don’t use ugly 3D pie charts. first of all, volumes are harder to compare than lines, and the way you rotated the axes is very deceptive as well. as an ‘analyst’ you should understand you yourself are lying with data.

So if there are far fewer people who are uninsured, then reforming the system should be much EASIER than what they are proposing, and that is an encouraging development for all those who want to reform the system.

36 million is more than the population of Canada and many other countries, though. Not chump change.

Well Jai, let’s hope your “insentive” to educate yourself is great enough that you’d learn to spell at a junior high level

to jai: i like how you say you are “more educated” while spelling incentive twice with an s. good stuff.

Thank you for that insight Karroog.

It’s true folks, the economics of our current system can only work for so long before they snowball out of control. People who don’t understand economics are always the ones who think there is a free lunch to be had if we don’t spend so much in another area or if we reform policy in some way.

There is no free lunch people, everything has a cost associated with it . . . even if that cost is obscured or delayed.

hahahaahhaha

“im going to fight numbers with estimations and nonsense”

good try

“turning the health care industry upside down for 1 out of 15 people seems a bit much”

So you’re saying let’s not reform health care because it’s a nuisance? a pain-in-th-a$$? Numbers aside, that’s not really a compelling argument.

“That means that there are 35.6 million Americans who don’t have health insurance. That’s 12.3% of the population, rather than the quoted 15.3%. Does “36 million” sound as impressive as “45 million?” I don’t think so.”

—-

Bzzzz… wrong answer. 35 million Americans without insuarnce is AWFUL.

But worst, you miss the point entirely: even the vast majority of Americans WITH insurance are hosed. I work for a fortune 500 company, and my insurance only covers 80% of the bill. God forbid I get in a terrible accident and need $500k in treatment - I’d be hosed with a $100k bill.

“Does “36 million” sound as impressive as “45 million?” I don’t think so.”

No, it really does still sound impressive, especially when it’s about something like this…

Moronic article. Non-citizens are people, and the healthcare system cannot turn them away (and by cannot, it is illegal to do so) and so they still count. “Between insurance” is not actually a category that means anything, you either have insurance or you don’t, and insurance companies don’t cover you for healthcare needs that occur before or after your coverage begins. The economic and healthcare system impact of both groups still exists, whether you want to call them “uninsured” or something else. 44.8 million uninsured is exactly that.

And even if I believed your numbers and your conclusion, 1 in 15 people, if it makes our healthcare system as bad and inexpensive as it is, is enough reason to upend it. Just goes to show blogs and pie charts don’t mean you have something worth saying…

Seems like you have a real bias here (judging by your web site), so I don’t know why I bother to point this out but…

It’s a bit disingenuous to write an article about fudged figures and then fudge them yourself. You make assumptions about people being “between insurances” or not being fundamentally uninsured, but you don’t know one way or the other what the actual figures are. You are just as bad as the people you are trying to criticise.

Your only valid argument here (and I am not sure I even believe you based on how you spin this story), is the first “cut” where you remove the non-citizens from the equation. The rest is pure BS and speculation.

Why wouldn’t people lie the other way about having insurance anyway? Most uninsured people would be poor right? And admitting to not having insurance is pretty much as bad as saying “I’m a poor white-trash trailer-park dude.” Seems to me that people would be more likely to lie and say they have insurance when they don’t.

Finally, you leave out the important fact that even if you have insurance, a lot of the time it’s crap insurance. That’s not related to your blog here about the 45 million number, but it’s relevant to the whole situation Americans find themselves in today with Health Care. The system most definitely needs a radical change, whether you can see it or not.

Go to the CIA’s fact sheet website to notice how the USA’s infant mortality rate is much higher than Cuba’s.

Then keep telling yourself that 100% free market economics in health care works…

The tyranny of the minority? What ever happened to the rights of the minority? Your argument is based solely on what you believe to be the belief system of the majority. Just because the majority has health care doesn’t mean it isn’t a broken system, and that yes, maybe those 7 out of 8 should help the 1. (A principle this nation was founded on.) And I would even propose that most of that 7 of 8 would be willing to consider helping the one out. The irrefutable line is that our health care system is based on profit and not the desire to provide for the nation’s citizens in their time of need despite their income or their effort. Your freedom of speech is unquestionably protected even if you should write the most hateful and even conspiratory material. Should free speech only be given to those who deserve it? The care of our citizen’s health should be treated the same… as an inalienable right for all of humanity.

Hahahaha

Torn apart on your own comments page. Nice.

The “Minority” of 36 MILLION PEOPLE (Just let that number sink in for a moment)is not the only reason cited for Health-Care Reform. Even Shills such as Dr Sanjay Gupta admits the system is broken.

The US Healthcare system is ranked at #37 by WHO ahead of Slovenia and Cuba (Whoo-hoo! We’re number 37!). while our life expectancy is lower than Cuba, and child mortality rate is higher we are spending $6000-$7000 per capita on health care compared to $250 in Cuba.

Why? Because insurance agencies seek higher profits each year based on our health care. The uninsured is a relatively small item in the whole picture. Our system is becoming more expensive every day, so coverage will decrease to maintain profits.

Broken.

“When we say that somebody is “uninsured,” most of us imagine some poor betrodden worker laboring for years without medical attention because he can’t get insurance. I call this “chronically uninsured” - somebody who can’t afford to get into the insurance system, and so goes without insurance for long periods of time.”

Think again. Being a contract worker myself, I see many, MANY people who are exactly like the first description you give. And by calling us “chronically uninsured” you are just trying to make it sound like it’s our fault.

Personally, in the last 10 years I have had insurance for 2 months. It is not because I can’t afford it, because I can, and would GLADLY pay for it if I could. It is because by being a contract worker, I do not get insurance benefits through my place of business. And I cannot buy my own insurance because no insurance company will take me, PERIOD, due to preexisting medical conditions. This isn’t a “boo-hoo poor me sob story,” merely an example. There are many other people like me.

Why is it that the only people who can get insurance anymore are the people who don’t need it as much? How is this right?

I have health insurance, and I still want reform. Insurance companies try to find every way possible to reject claims. I and the company I work for pay them way more money each year than I get back in coverage.

Why would you not want non-citizens to be covered by your health system? I don’t know about you but if my overseas friends came for a visit and broke their leg, I for sure would want them to recieve health care. Are Americans that xenophobic that they want tourists to fall through the gaps?

Oh and btw 18 Million (6%) between insurace during the survey means 6% without insurance when they happened to get hit by a car. That means every 20th person going into hospital, doctors surgery, clinic or pharmacy is refused treatment because they were “between insurance”.

one in eight may not have health insurance, but i bet another 4 can barely afford health insurance, and while it says that they are covered, they really aren’t. the expenses for their medical bills are way above what they can afford. i know this because my dad who is a poolman has health insurance, but after a tragic motor cycle accident he needed to be airlifted to a hospital for immediate medical attention. the insurance company covered net to nothing on the air lift and my dad got shipped to some shitty county hospital when he should have been at a mre experieced and competent hospital. they even fought him on covering his rehab costs. they said they’d only pay for a nursing home for rehab, which the nursing home just let my dad sit and did nothing to help improve his condition. my dad does not belong in that kind of place, he is only 48. so if u think that the health coverage system is fine the way it is, then you must be ignorant to the subject. i have experienced this first-hand and could not describe to you the struggles i’ve experienced. something needs to be done.

you can stick your pie chart up your ass, the insurance companies need to be strictly regulated and the health care needs to be universal and payed for by the taxes

>>>Does “36 million” sound as impressive as “45 million?” I don’t think so.<<< You’re joking, right? Is that supposed to be a sound argument for not changing the health care system? 36 million people is plenty!

Well, under this flawed logic, we should immediately get rid of public libraries, as the majority of us don’t use them. Also, let’s start charging fees for use of the public roadways. Those who can afford to pay for them can still drive, and for everyone else, you’ll have to stay off them and walk to where you need to go. While we’re at it, instead of providing universal healthcare to everyone and focusing on preventative care for those who need it most, we should also start charging parents for elementary school children’s textbooks and the teachers to teach them, as socialized learning is a bad thing, and only those who can afford it should be allowed to go to school. The rest should just stay home and pick cotton for a living.

Who cares if 9.2 million are non-citizens? Don’t non-citizens have the need for a good health care system? I am a non-citizen. I am a legal resident alien. I pay taxes and obey all the laws. Why discriminate against legal non-citizens?

You sir are obviously an immature idiot. Please get off the internet and let others pass.

You are also leaving out “Under Insured” citizens.

There are 45 million people in the US without health insurance. There should be no one. No, 36 million does not sound better. It means that you are not counting 9 million people. and 36 million is still 36 million too many. The fact that that is the best you can do to refute Michael Moore shows how good his argument is and how poor yours is.

Even taking your figures 12.5% is pretty high. Look out your window. If you can see 100 people 12 of them will have no health care on average. Is that really what a caring society should have? Of course if you have shares in the insurance company, I can see your point.

We are #37, we are #37, we are #37… does not have much of a ring to it does it!

If you live and work in the US you should have health coverage.

I can’t believe this article. 36 million seems like a pretty big number to me. You are also forgetting all the people that actually DO have insurance that still get screwed over on a day to day basis and end up drowning in medical bills. It’s common sense, open your eyes.

I’m between insurers because I’m between jobs. And because I sought treatment for something in college, I’ve got a “pre-existing condition” that prevents me from being able to afford to carry my own. I shouldn’t be punished for seeking treatment just because YOU happen to like YOUR insurance the way it is. And I’ll wager you’re pretty healthy, too. Wait ‘till something serious happens to you, you get denied something critical you need and see how fast you change your tune, pal.

I will agree that 36 million is not as many as 45 million, but it is still a huge number.

You’re a jackass. First off, those “7 out of 8” Americans WITH insurance aren’t as insured as they think they are. That’s the whole fallacy of “insurance”. Secondly — Republican tax laws have, for the last 6 years, benefitted 1% of the population. So if you’re going to use your absurd little argument: Should 99 out of 100 Americans support a system that benefits 1%?

I think not.

Man, are you on the wrong side of an issue, and the wrong side of history. Babbling righties talk about how long the wait is to receive medical attention in Canada, or England. How long is forever? It’s a long, long time for the people who die because they can’t receive preventative care. I can wish you get cancer because clearly, you’re insured.

So there is 10 million less people. I think the point is lost on this report.

The issue is still the same.…of the people who ARE insured, you must jump through burning hoops of fire just to get the damn medical attention that you’ve paid premiums to receive. Our health care system IS a disaster and will stay like that so long as the health care system is driven by charging as much as they can, and denying as many claims as they can.

Who cares if 9.2 million are non-citizens? Don’t non-citizens have the need for a good health care system? I am a non-citizen. I am a legal resident alien. I pay taxes and obey all the laws. Why discriminate against legal non-citizens?

You sir are obviously an immature idiot. Please get off the internet and let others pass.

“Socialized health-care has serious flaws also.

The fact remains: NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, THEY CANNOT CLOSE THE GAP RELATING LONGEVITY TO INCOME! Even in countries with fully socialized health care, the disparity between income and longevity exists.

I like the fact, that I’m a more educated individual, that I have better health care than someone working in a blue collar job. It gives me more insentive to pursue my education, and it gives other people that insentive too.

Why do all liberals wish they lived in Europe? Why don’t they just move there?”

More educated huh? Let’s start with some basic spelling and once you have that mastered you can come back and speak your mind. lol…

I work in health care and I’d be more then happy to see everyone have health care provided for them. Even if it means I have to put in a few bucks myself.

If you can fight for your country as a non-citizen (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/f/noncitizen.htm), your country should certainly help you with your health. Citizens or not, being American means you live in America. Also, if you are analyzing values, then you should interpolate the trend appropriately (at least linearly) which puts it at 11.5%. When you really take factors into account (like when healthcare was privatized) you can see it won’t be a linear interpolation but a exponential rise so it’s probably closer to 12-13%. Add that to the fact that your country makes laws based on lobbying for the 1% of the population (1 in a 100), making room for 1 in 8 or 1 in 15 or 1 in 50 shouldn’t be too much to ask for (i guess the difference is the 1% who make rules are the ones that control 1/5 of the money).

I was thinking exactly the same as Marcaias.

The “chronically uninsured” argument you propose is bogus. If you are insured 1 of 365 days, you lose the status of “chronically uninsured,” as you define it. The idea of being “chronically uninsured” is irrelevant if you need medical attention on a day that you are in fact uninsured.

The more relevant question is:

How many people did not seek out medical care because they… A) did not have insurance B) had insurance but still could not afford the care (copays, non-covered expenses, etc.) C) had insurance but feared the insurance company would retroactively change their stance on covering the expenses D) had insurance but didn’t know how to handle the insurance claims process

Your just a Biased idiot with a Blog.……

36 vs 45 million isn’t important IMHO.

What is relevant is that we somehow manage to pay more for our health care per capita than almost any other country. To me, at least partly, this is because, for tens of millions of people, the only access to health care is in the emergency room. So, what should be minor, inexpensive issues, become “crises” — and thus more expensive.

Those of us who have health insurance do pay to cover the uninsured. We just do it in an insanely expensive fashion because we aren’t willing to fork up what would probably be fewer dollars to provide insurance across the board.

Consider this: I would love to take the risk of starting my own business. The main reason I don’t do it is because I won’t be able to afford insurance on my own. (I’m mostly healthy, but at age 40, with a few bumps and bruises and extra pounds on my body, I’m not exactly on the insurance company A-list either.) So I hold on to my nice salaried job with the nice health insurance package.

How many other would-be entrepreneurs does our country lose for this reason?

Ah, the health conglomerate lobby’s blog astroturfing campaign has finally started. Hey, how can I get paid to be a shill. The pay on disability is shit, and I need new shoes.

The author makes an irrational argument. His sophistry cannot be used to lower the figure from 36 million to 18 million uninsured Americans in the context of universal healthcare.

Assume that there is no fluctuation in rate at which Americans lose and gain health insurance. Assume also that illness strikes a person within a given timeframe with same probability regardless of whether they are insured or not.

Even if the survey was done to get point-of-time data, you will have the exact same number of uninsured persons at any given moment in time. This means that in order to calculate the expected number of illnesses that occur while being uninsured within the timeframe mentioned before, you would multiply 36 million by the probability mentioned before.

In fact, 36 million is the more accurate figure in the context of whether we should have universal healthcare. 18 million uninsured for the whole year does not mean there were only 18 million uninsured part of the time. For example, assume that for any given year there exists only people who have no insurance for the whole year and people who are missing insurance for a third of the year. That means that in addition to 18 million people who had no insurance for the whole year, there were 54 million people had no insurance for exactly a third of that year.

You do not suddenly have 0% probablility of getting sick while uninsured because you will have insurance again before the end of the year.

Unadulterated bullshit.

36 million is the better figure for the topic.

Also, just because a person is not a citizen doesn’t mean that they are illegal aliens. Any proposal of universal healthcare should cover tax-paying legal resident aliens and their family. I’m curious as to how many of the 9.2 million he subtracted falls into that category.

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░████████████░░░░░░░░████████████░░ ░░████████████░░░░░░░░████████████░░ ░░████████████░░░░░░░░████████████░░ ░░████████████░░░░░░░░████████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░████████████████████████████████░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

I was going to post a comment because i was outraged at how you are twisting the facts to make it seem like leaving people out in the cold is a good thing.. but i see previous posters have already pointed out your glaring flaws and obvious bias.

Nice try tho.. i give you a b+ for troll effort.

Even if it is 36 million ..is that small ?? Is that insignificant ..Just making some pie charts from your imagination .Does the poster know there are 18000 people WHO DIE EVERY YEAR DUE TO LACK OF MEDICAL INSURANCE .. It is 36 million lives !!. but why do u care people u care about profits ..typical profit monger

What the heck has being a citizen got to do with this. If you live, work and pay taxes here then you should be counted in this. I’d hazard a guess though that the percentage of legal permanent residents without health insurance is way less than that of citizens.

Rights to healthcare? Their right is to live free and on their own terms, not to receive everything for free when they haven’t been able to pull together their own means, be it through fate or through laziness. Let’s start relying on the proven works of natural selection, and artificial selection too since thats as natural as anything else, and see where that takes us. Lets stop spending the majority of our healthcare money on the oldest people who contribute the least to society and have the least mobility and independence. Let’s see where all of THAT takes us…I guarantee the cost of healthcare could drop drastically if we stopped thinking that we need to prolong EVERY persons life until the point where they arent even with it enough to know who is talking to them. Cut out that cost and the rest of us, the masses, will have to pay less for our own healthcare.

Yes, I see tax-funded healthcare in the Bill of Rights. Why don’t you socialist all leave since it’s so bad here.

Wow, that was the most willful misunderstanding of the movie I’ve seen so far. Congratulations!

For the love of all that is holy (or… not, if that’s your thing), SHUT UP PLEASE! Arguing on the internet is ridiculous. It’s like playing in the special olympics: even if you win, you’re still retarded. Noncitizens are absolutely people, no one is arguing that, but if they’re not citizens, they’re not entitled to the same rights and priviledges as citizens. A lot of noncitizens are here illegally and aren’t paying income or property tax, money which would likely go to support Universal Coverage. Those that are here legally (such as students) almost universally have insurance from their home country or an international organization. Also, if all you can call out on someone is spelling errors, WHO CARES?! Einstein failed the 7th grade math but you don’t really see us ripping him apart for that! Also, the “pain-in-the-ass” argument is a very good one. Why don’t many of us recycle? Because it’s a pain in the ass (PITA from now on)! Why do so many of us want to pull out of Iraq, PITA! Why do we want to close the US-Mexico border? PITA! Why don’t we stop burning fossil feuls? Yet again, PITA… I honestly don’t care whether we adopt universal coverage or not, it makes little difference to me since I’ll be insured one way or the other, but to all of you, if you’re going to argue about something, anything, A) don’t do it on the internet and B) think first.

Funny the author doesn’t mention the underinsured - just because you have insurance doesn’t mean you are fully covered, the uninsured is just part of the problem - meaningless article.

You lost me at:

Does “36 million” sound as impressive as “45 million?” I don’t think so.

Thank God for comments! I feel so much better after reading them. Consider yourself PWNED.

Again:

EVEN IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, THE DISPARITY BETWEEN INCOME AND HEALTH REMAINS!!!!

There are OTHER factors involved with making people “healthier”. Even with 100% free health care, the rich tend to live longer than the poor.

Providing health care, to people who haven’t earned it, will not fix that.

And yes, I said it. Those with out health care probably haven’t earned it. Tough luck, you chose that life, not I. I’m not covering your ass.

I can’t wait until every American gets the same health care our honored veterans receive.

I am excited about our health care system becoming as top notch as our public school system.

I welcome the day that eliminates forever the lawsuits against careless doctors.

I welcome the day when I can receive health care as high quality as other government services I enjoy today, such as the DMV, the IRS and the Post Office.

It excites me to think that one day, our heath care system might run as smoothly as the border patrol and as quickly as the justice system.

Best of all, I welcome the day when I can trade an ignorant greedy corporation for an honest, selfless politician.

“Those who trade liberty for security are destined to receive neither.”

The first time Hilary got elected President Washington state turned its health care system upside down to implement the “Hilarycare Plan” that was introduced in her first 100 days in office. You know, the same kind of “everyone will have health care, even if everyone else has to pay for it” plan being so loudly discussed now.

It has been far less than a success and the healthcare in this state has suffered for it. I’ve gotten better quality healthcare on main land China than I’ve gotten in Washington State.

Well, I see the socialists found this blog (probably many by way of Digg).

There is no “right” to health care, much less an inalienable right. Additional government interference in health care will make it worse, not better.

Well, next time you go spouting 36 million as not that many people, you should get a clue as to the number of people in the different states. IOW, state census.

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

Yes, you could take about half the union and basically none of those people have care. FACTS FTW!

thank god (can i still say that in the u.s) for the u.s. health system. montreal, a major city in a country with national healthcare , got there 1st CT scan in 2002. think about that, a routine procedure in the u.s. not available in a city the size of montreal. thats how wonderful national healthcare is. the government health system has still not bought a CT machine for montreal. the one that is in montreal was donated by the “saku koivu foundation”. a hockey player who had cancer and had to leave canada to get a CT scan! hockey players have enough wealth to travel to another country to find decent healthcare. i read comments about 1 of 8 don’t have healthcare. my opinion that is better than 8 of 8 having poor healhcare, where things like CT scans aren’t available.

I think we are barking on a wrong tree.…we first need to understand that “people should not need insurance to go talk to a doctor”. Health care should be the right of every citizen.

Moore is right. Remove the middleman between the doctor and patient. The middleman is the insurance. They are the ones who goad patients to file frivolous lawsuits and then scare doctors to take up insurance, raising costs for everybody else but filling up their pockets.

I wonder why people cannot see the middleman and its practices.

@Jai

You said “And yes, I said it. Those with out health care probably haven’t earned it. Tough luck, you chose that life, not I. I’m not covering your ass.”

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

There are many people who are uninsured in this country who have MORE than earned it. I have worked hard all my life, and I am uninsured, and have been for years. I currently have a pretty nice job - I make more than enough money to live comfortably on my own, even including my huge hospital payments that I’ve incurred since I don’t have insurance.

I don’t have insurance because I am a contract worker and it is not offered by my “employer”.

I cannot buy my own insurance because no company will insured me - I have been denied by them all due to preexisting medical conditions (see above “huge hospital payments.”) What am I supposed to do? What do you propose?

Should I quit my good, well-paying job that I like, and go work somewhere else for less money so that I can get insurance? Why should I have to change jobs to get insurance? And if I do, someone else will just take my place here, and then they won’t have insurance either. Nice plan.

The chronically uninsured is a problem. These people either for financial reasons, legal reasons, or health reasons cannot acquire insurance. However, the temporarily uninsured is the more pervasive problem. In spite of your argument of “snapshot statistics”, if 36 M people are uninsured today, 36 M will likely be uninsured next week. Not the same 36 million - as some gain insurance, others lose it. This fluctuates seasonally, but the real tend to watch is the rate of employment vs the rate of insured. These are steadily diverging.

I live in an area that has relatively high unemployment (for the US). Jobs here are hard to find and tend to be short-lived. Increasingly we are seeing jobs offered with no health benefits. It is very common that health benefits, if offered, do not kick in for 3-6 months. Since jobs are difficult to find here, a job search typically lasts three to six months, which when followed by another three to six months probation period, usually means no insurance for a good chunk of a year. Given that we are likely to be out of job again in another year or two, we look forward to doing it all again.

The other problem with this temporarily uninsured model is COBRA. This legislation is supposed to allow those who lose their jobs to maintain insurance coverage while seeking new employment (or while waiting out the “probation” period in their new job). However, costs to the recently unemployed of maintaining COBRA coverage are typically very high $500-$900 per month, and in most cases you cannot opt for a reduced insurance package when transitioning from the employer’s package to COBRA. Of course, this is a direct result of the extremely high insurance premiums in the US.

For those that need affordable coverage for less than a year, there are basically no options.

Chronically Uninsured, if you make enough money to cover your huge hospital bills, why do you need insurance? Don’t get me wrong, I understand the point you’re trying to make. Not everyone who doesn’t have insurance, hasn’t earned it, I agree with that. But using yourself is a rather poor example since you clearly make enough money to negate the need for insurance. Just something you might want to consider.

What motivates you to defend the current health care system in the united states?

Interesting point, but there are some inaccuracies in your analysis.

1.) In your section, “Uninsured for how long?”, you’re combining figures from the 2005 Census report to 1998 numbers in the CBO report. It’s similar to an apples and oranges comparison, so your 2nd pie chart is inaccurate.

2.) From the 2005 Census report (page 23): “Most people (59.5 percent) were covered by a health insurance plan related to employment for some or all of 2005, a smaller proportion than in the previous year (59.8 percent).” Contrary to your argument, the people who have health coverage for “some or all of” 2005 are included in the insured category. In other words, the people whom you term “in between insurance” are actually part of the “insured”, and your 2nd pie chart is inaccurate.

3.) While you correctly observe that non-citizens are included in the survey, you did not note that “People in institutions, such as prisons, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes, are therefore not eligible to be interviewed in the CPS.” (page 28 of the 2005 Census report)I am not an expert on the topic, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that people in long-term care hospitals and nursing homes have higher rates if non-insurance. Of course, it could be a mistaken assumption.

I can understand your concern (about misrepresentation by politicians: 45 million American citizens vs. 45 million of people in America), but it seems like the main crux of your argument is this: “Does “36 million” sound as impressive as “45 million?” I don’t think so.”

To be honest, this is a subjective argument. I personally believe 36 million is pretty impressive, myself.

Can someone clarify something for me?

What, EXACTLY, are the you (those who disagree with the post) proposing be done for the people without steady health care(be it 45m, 36m or 18m of them)?

Are you proposing that the government pay for their healthcare?

Are you wanting the government to dictate what drugs to take when?

Are you wanting the government to “take care” of them?

Are you wanting the government to bugger off and leave the US people alone?

And, most pressing, why does every person living in America NEED healthcare? Shouldn’t they be responsible for their own? Why do people want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave?

Please answer me these - I am willing to listen to any reasonable argument, and would like to debate the topic. I don’t want to be in the middle of a Flame War though. =(

Thanks!

[quote tomesnyder] Well, I see the socialists found this blog (probably many by way of Digg).

There is no “right” to health care, much less an inalienable right. Additional government interference in health care will make it worse, not better.[/quote]

YEEESSS!! That is SOOO RIGHT!!

You are so fucking careless and ignorant.

@A College Student

I make just enough money to cover the payments for my huge hospital bill, which were worked out by the hospital’s financial aid department and will be payed off completely in about 5 years at this rate.

I was not saying that I am rich or anything, as I am certainly not. I make enough to pay for my apartment and bills, and I have a little bit leftover for fun stuff. I’m not digging around for change, but I am not living in a luxury apartment either.

Point being, I make decent money, I’ve worked hard all my life, I’ve worked at this job for three years and plan on working here much longer, and I have no insurance. I am not someone who “doesn’t deserve” insurance because I haven’t worked for it or something.

EVERYONE deserves to be able to see a doctor if they are ill.

Even those with insurance are often getting screwed, overpaying for insurance, overpaying for meds, and getting refused for treatments. Getting everyone covered is a benefit to everyone, not just the people who are newly covered. It helps to identify and control epidemics, increase work productivity and so on.

I’m sure the germs will check passports and ask if you’re between jobs before jumping from one person to another in this country.

An Open Mind: Ok, obviously not everyone here is an economic/medical analyst or a statistician. But we’re pissed off about this basic fact: The healthcare system (including insurance et al) is incredibly inefficient. That’s undisputable. It’s insanely expense, and provides low quality care for the money you pay per person. No two ways about it: The free market isn’t working here. You just have to accept it. If you argue that point then we can’t have any kind of discussion, because it’s a statistical reality when you compare the US to other countries. This means that even those people that don’t think that the government should coddle people, and that people should fend for themselves should be angry, because they’re literally getting screwed.

If I want to go all bleeding heart on you, then I’d mention the… and I’m pulling this number out of my memory, and don’t remember where I heard it, so if I’m wrong don’t kill me: 12000 people that die a year because they had no care. Or the fact that babies die because their care isn’t as good as that of babies in Cuba. Should the babies take care of themselves? Is it the parent’s fault? Is it legitimate to blaim the baby for the parent’s inability to provide enough money or insurance to make sure the baby survives? If the system doesn’t cover everyone, is too expensive, and provides low quality care, doesn’t that mean something is wrong? And if we do look at the other countries, and we see that they do have higher quality care, at lower prices with coverage for everyone, shouldn’t we copy that? I mean, it’ll obviously do the economy good. Hell, it’ll probably do you good. Yes, you. It might take time to transfer over, but don’t you think it’ll be a worthwhile endevour for your children to get good quality care? Your argument has no weight because you’re literally defending a system that sucks balls. You can hate socialism all you want but it doesn’t change reality. The reality is that socialized healthcare is better, cheaper, more efficient, and gives broader coverage. Period.

“Tyranny of the minority.”

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I seem to remember something in our history about people being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. While healthcare wasn’t specifically mentioned I’m sure it could be easily considered and extension under the “life” clause and possibly the “pursuit of happiness”. Along a similar line I don’t recall that the definition of “people” was limited to “only those with citizenship” or “7 out of 8 people with citizenship” or “those that can afford it.”

I work for a healthcare company. We’d like nothing more than to claim that other 36-40 million PEOPLE as our customers. For the record, even if it were 3 million, it wouldn’t be any less significant. These are PEOPLE we’re talking about, not statistics. These are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandfathers, grandmothers, family and friends. That means that the 50 or so people you know relatively well at least 6 are struggling with the lack of healthcare insurance. Many more than that are struggling with the FACT of benefits at greatly reduced coverage. Even those with supposedly great insurance are starting to feel the burden of “consumer driven health plans” and HRAs and getting squeezed into donut holes in coverage even though they’ve only had relatively minor use of their benefits. Let us also not forget the significant amount of people who are “covered” under Medicare and Medicaid. Many of these government insured have to decide to put off a doctors visit or not renew one or more of their ten plus medications because they’ll need that money for food, rent, or electricity.

There can be no doubt that there is waste and fraud within our healthcare system. NONE.

Example of Waste: My wife and I have 5 children. For each child, prior to it’s birth, we went to the hospital for check-ups 20+ times. Each time we had to fill out the same forms as if we’d never been there before, as if they didn’t already know us by name, and as if we weren’t already well logged in the computer system. That paperwork takes time to fill out, takes time to process, requires storage both electronically and physically, and that costs money.

Example of Fraud: A medical supply vendor approaches a medical coder and lets the coder know that instead of using code “XXX” for this stint or suture or what-have-you they would like the coder to use code “YYY”. The coder knows that “XXX” is for a specific listed device while “YYY” is a “miscellaneous instrument” and bills at a higher rate. When management is presented with this ethical dilemma they tell the coder to do it as the vendor requested, they’re very good suppliers after all and give deep discounts for small hospitals.

Insurance companies are finding more and more ways to deny or limit coverage; Pre-existing conditions, probation periods, CDHP, HRA, Donut Holes, Tiered Indemnity, Step Therapy, Customized Formulary, Life-time-limits, etc. Not only do they deny benefits to patients but also to doctors who aren’t “part of the network”. There are side deals, negotiated rates, write-offs, rebates, and a host of other legal but questionable practices that allow the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and I’m sure the other larger healthcare providers to pull in a tidy sum. All the while stiffing a variety of other people. People’s rates shoot higher and higher and employers begin to share the burden of those rates by choosing higher copays and passing more of the cost onto employees.

Doctors are spending less time with patients and more time with paperwork. Patients are spending more time with nurses and nurse practitioners and still paying higher and higher copays even though their not getting the same specialized care as before. Doctors are having to see more and more patients each day to stay under contract and be able to pay the bills. Sometimes they are even abandoning their beloved practices for more viable specialty work in consulting, teaching, or hospital management. The happy-go-lucky success stories about healthcare here in the United States are far and few between. You can’t dismiss that, and you can’t say that it’s just the media. It’s reality and I’m sure that most of the people here in these comments has had first hand experience.

Universal healthcare insurance will address two problems: 1) uninsured Americans 2) low usage of healthcare IT in hospitals

#2 would happen because with a single insurance payer we would not need as many IT workers in the healthcare insurance industry. This would cause a minor flood of healthcare experienced IT talent in the labor market. This increase in supply would slow wage growth and for experienced healthcare IT workers and allow more projects focusing on healthcare quality (which are starving for experienced employees). Most of the healthcare insurance workers have limited knowledge of clinical systems, but they are better than trying to train a clinician that little aptitude.

you are an idiot

plus

50% of the people with insurance have such shitty coverage that they might as well not have a fucking policy.

plus

you are an idiot

If we have money to kill, we have money to heal.

Heres a fun exercise. Lets pretend every person without health insurance is a shiny penny. You now have 45,000,000 pennies. Lets exclude non-citizen pennies, because thats how the author presented this. Now you only have 35,000,000 pennies. Lets not count pennies that aren’t “chronically uninsured”. You now have only 18,000,000 pennies.

Now, give me all those pennies.

What? You don’t want to? I thought 18,000,000 pennies is a reasonable amount for you to give me, after all, I’m only asking for 40% of the original amount. By your logic this is a trivial amount and I fail to see what the problem is.

After all, We are talking about something far more important that pennies, and that is the health and welfare of the citizens and other members of this country. Maybe we should just help out this trivial 6% of the population. Or, maybe, and I know this is going out on a limb, just have health care for everyone like every other leading country.

between insurance?

what the fuck?

it’s a wonder you still know how to breathe, idiot.

extremist (aka right wing) propaganda.

A

I know it’s been noted, but it stands repeating. It’s pretty hilarious the hypocrisy of Jai claiming he deserves his health care due to the “insentive” (x2) he has to be more educated than us poor ignorant liberals advocating universal health care.

I trust he’ll have the “insentive” to turn down evil socialist programs like Medicare when his day comes.

I love this post…

“Should I quit my good, well-paying job that I like, and go work somewhere else for less money so that I can get insurance? Why should I have to change jobs to get insurance? And if I do, someone else will just take my place here, and then they won’t have insurance either. Nice plan.”

Cost benefit analysis…you would rather continue to pocket your money than pay for insurance…or in this case “work somewhere else for less money”

I paid for my family’s insurance for a year, between jobs…why? because I felt it was worth the sacrifice to have that safety net. The job I went to had immediate coverage with no issues about pre-existing conditions. (so much for that excuse)

Freedom means you get to choose what is important for you…cruise, new car, nice TV, cable, broadband, PDA, cellphone, retire at age 50, insurance, safe neighborhood, well educated kids, running water, air conditioning…you get to choose.

For me, I gave up everything else on that list to get insurance, a safe neighborhood, and air conditioning. (100 deg is ridiculous)

[quote tomesnyder] Well, I see the socialists found this blog (probably many by way of Digg).

There is no “right” to health care, much less an inalienable right. Additional government interference in health care will make it worse, not better.[/quote]

YEEESSS!! That is SOOO RIGHT!!

Posted by USA, Not SSA!! on July 11, 2007 7:14 PM

And there is also no “Right” to policeman, fireman, roads, housing, education, food, childcare, jobs, transportation, etc., etc.

The government already controls all of your money, and look at the wonderful job they are doing. Do you really want to trust them with your health ?

I think articles like this once again are exactly the reason your health care has degraded to the level it is. Everyone arguing over irrelevant numbers.

The point isn’t that X number are uninsured. The point is currently the health system is about profit. A government run system is not for profit. And as for throwing around words like tyranny and minority get with the times. You make it sound like omfg ‘communism’ which it’s not. It’s providing a service that is availiable to all people like other government run services paid for by tax like i dunno…the police etc.

Wish everyone would quit bitching about numbers and look at the reality of how it is. Americans far behind the Western world. Why…could be any number of reasons but its about time we fixed it.

Personally I don’t care about the un-insured. I want to be able to retire and not leave my kids in debt because of my medical bills. I have health insurance, good insurance actually. But it’s going away when I retire. Right when I’ll be getting old and moving into heart attack age. Falling down and breaking hips, developing lung problems and if i’m lucky a good case of dementia.

I say lucky because the choices are to grow old sick, or get hit by a bus and die suddenly. One way or another, death will catches everyone. The only difference is how big are the medical bills before you go.

So my choices in that arena are an agency like medicare/medicaid or private insurance companies. They both do the same thing, they both defer the cost of medical bills across a large number of people to make it cheaper. Private companies have to make money, so they refuse service and raise prices to keep profits up. Private companies also compete with each other for customers so will never have the entire population to defer the costs across.

Medicare/Medicaid has a lower overhead cost because they don’t make a profit. They have the maximum customer base (everyone) insuring that maximum spliting of cost. And the size of the customer base also allows better haggling for prices.

Put simply, no private company can ever provide better base coverage than a government system. There may be private options for advanced/expirmental/extreme care. But for the problems that everyone is going face, private companies cost more and are likely to provide worse service.

@Pay for my own insurance

You said “Freedom means you get to choose what is important for you…cruise, new car, nice TV, cable, broadband, PDA, cellphone, retire at age 50, insurance, safe neighborhood, well educated kids, running water, air conditioning…you get to choose. For me, I gave up everything else on that list to get insurance, a safe neighborhood, and air conditioning. (100 deg is ridiculous)”

As I pointed out in that same post, I cannot do those things. I cannot pay for my own insurance company, because no insurance company will insure me. Why won’t they insure me? Because I actually NEED INSURANCE. They only insure people who won’t most likely use the insurance.

And I don’t have the choice of “giving up” things like “cruise, new car, nice TV, cable, broadband, PDA, cellphone, retire at age 50, insurance, safe neighborhood, well educated kids, running water, air conditioning…” because I can’t afford those things either. When I said I lived comfortably, I meant comfortably for a NORMAL PERSON, not Paris Hilton. Of that list, the ONLY things I have are a cell phone and running water.

If you can afford to pay for all those things, then maybe you should pay for your own damn healthcare and let the insurance companies help out the people who can’t.

Jai said: “And yes, I said it. Those with out health care probably haven’t earned it. Tough luck, you chose that life, not I. I’m not covering your ass.”

Define “earned”. Unfortunately there are many WITH access to healthcare that also have not “earned” it.

You, my friend, are a fucktard

Just to weigh in… None of this changes the fact that the richest nation in the world has the 30somethingth worst health care in the world.

Jai said: “And yes, I said it. Those with out health care probably haven’t earned it. Tough luck, you chose that life, not I. I’m not covering your ass.”

angel said: Define “earned”. Unfortunately there are many WITH access to healthcare that also have not “earned” it. Now go away and let the big people talk.

I am a union worker; Worked hard all my life; Raised 2 children; Payed for their college, so they could take care of their own. Who pays for my health care? MY BIG GREEDY FAT-CAT CORPORATE EMPLOYER. (ain’t that what you bleeding hearts call them?) I have a niece; Didn’t finish High School, Does drugs; Can’t keep a job because she is so lazy. She got knocked up by one of those poor “non-citizens” and had the baby 2 months pre-mature. Who pays for her million dollar medical bills? Does she get it from the WELL-FAIRy??? Yes she does! YOU AND I pay for her worth-less-ness!!! (That’s if you have a job and pay taxes). If you ask me, the health care system in this country is so screwed up because bureaucracies are paying the medical bills and not responsible individuals.

Sad state of affairs that we’re in this quandary to being with, fortunately the next electoral debate will make this a key issue because of the popularity of Sicko.

I don’t care how many of you damn socialists there are. He is showing that the politicians inflate numbers for their own gain. In this case, their gain is over your minds.

Chris said:”A government run system is not for profit.”

You are so right Chris. No politician or “Friend of the family” ever profitted from the current government health care systems like Medicare and Medicaid. They are so well run and VERY UNPROFITABLE. The cost of the war in Iraq is chump change compared to what these not-for-profit institutions are doing to the national debt. What will you do when the bureaucrats decide that kidney dialysis will not be provided to you after you reach 57 years of age, because we need that money to help the poor AIDS patients, and you’ve had a good long life anyway.

*************************************

Its “ONLY” 18 million people uninsured. Thats “ONLY” 1 out of 15 people.

Think about this number next time you have a bbq with family. If you have 15 family members at your bbq, it might be your daughter who is the 1 in 15 or your father.

But hey if your daughter looses her life due to no health care, its only 1 in 15 ehhhh? No biggie.

*************************************

Matt, I’ll come rob you and use your money to pay for it. Remember, you should be glad to hand over your money to me. You’re upholding your own ideas.

Matt Said: If you have 15 family members at your bbq, it might be your daughter who is the 1 in 15 or your father.

OR, it could be my lazy drugged up Niece and her million dollar baby.

Now I must admit, my tax money didn’t go to saving that babies life, because in the 35 years I’ve been working, I haven’t paid a million dollars in taxes(only about $750,000). So Matt, maybe she could go to your bbq and strip some of the skin off your back-ribs.

Matt, when your life gets loose, you may lose it if your not carefull.

If socialized medicine like in Europe is such a wonderful concept then why is there a booming business in Europe for private health insurance? Why is it a major advertised item when looking for the best candidate in certain jobs? Ask any European who has private insurance why it is and they will tell you. First the wait for health care is much much less. Second the quality of care is much higher.

It doesn’t matter if it’s only 1 million, it is still an unnecessary amount. Health of its citizens is one of the very first things a nation should have in order before they worry about any other problems.

In a country with no public health system 5% is too many to be uninsured

Don’t you all see, government run health care means you will be paying for your own health care AND the health care of others ? The only winners in this scheme are the companies and unions that currently pay employee health benefits. Do you think they are going to give you the cash they will save when they are no longer paying for your insurance? The insurance companies will still manage all the money, because they already have a system in place. The only thing that changes for them is they won’t have to compete for customers because the government will be their only client. Meanwhile the politicians will have another dependent class to hold under their metaphoric thumb, to threaten with a loss of health care if we don’t give them more money.

@chadd

Sure, there is less of a wait if you have private health insurance in Europe. And maybe the healthcare from the private insurance is better. But even if you don’t have the private health insurance, you can at least still go to an emergency room if you think you’re DYING and not be refused treatment because you have the wrong/no insurance, and not be charged more money than you make in a year for that treatment.

This is a luxury that we are not allowed in this country.

I want socialized healthcare. I’d love a federally run organization just like the system that delivers healthcare to the Indians with all the compassion of the IRS, and efficiency of the State Department (tried getting a passport), with the innovation and effectiveness of the Motor Vehicle Department. I want one just like Canada or the UK where the government can refuse you for smoking or being overweight. I want a system that makes you wait three years for a hip replacement and two years for an MRI.

Most of all I want a system that will go bankrupt so they can tell us why they can’t give you aspirin or bandaids without charging you for them.

Yes I want socialized healthcare for Portland Oregon and all the other people’s republics in the USA.

What’s deceptive about the term, “uninsured” is that it implies that these people are unable to get medical treatment. Anyone in this country can get medical treatment by walking into an emergency room. The costs just get passed onto those of us with insurance.

What someone really needs to look into is the amount of money that is spent by HMO’s in trying to comply with the numerous gross multitude of ridiculous laws written by the Hillary’s of the world which necessitate an army of lawyers to understand and comply with. How much does this bureaucratic compliance drive up costs?

I personally believe that we need to reform our health care system - because it is screwed up. To all those calling us Socialists - do you send your children to private schools? Or do you believe that like medicine - I fail to see the difference between UH or our current Gov. run school system.

While I support UH - I’d prefer to see the states ratify something instead of the Feds. But I’ll take what ever at this point - The Health care industry makes Billions in profits while screwing the little guy - Free market had it’s chance and has failed. Time to give UH a chance.

You what? Are you insane?! So what if it’s only 18million when you break it down, that’s still 18,000,000 PEOPLE, as in fellow human beings, that cannot get insurance because your country’s infrastructure cannot support them, and you’re saying that’s ok? You think its unfair that 7/8 ppl should change their way to accomodate the extra 1?! That’s what’s wrong with your country, and this world for that matter, in this day and age. You’re so self obsessed with your own problems and lives that you forget you share the planet with 6 other billion people, and countless generations beyond that in the future. When you finally realise that the threat from terrorists and other nations is SO SO SO MINUTE then maybe your government will adjust its budgetry spending and focus less on harming and more on saving humanity.

Most worthless article ever.

You what? Are you insane?! So what if it’s only 18million when you break it down, that’s still 18,000,000 PEOPLE, as in fellow human beings, that cannot get insurance because your country’s infrastructure cannot support them, and you’re saying that’s ok? You think its unfair that 7/8 ppl should change their way to accomodate the extra 1?! That’s what’s wrong with your country, and this world for that matter, in this day and age. You’re so self obsessed with your own problems and lives that you forget you share the planet with 6 other billion people, and countless generations beyond that in the future. When you finally realise that the threat from terrorists and other nations is SO SO SO MINUTE then maybe your government will adjust its budgetry spending and focus less on harming and more on saving humanity.

Most worthless article ever.

You what? Are you insane?! So what if it’s only 18million when you break it down, that’s still 18,000,000 PEOPLE, as in fellow human beings, that cannot get insurance because your country’s infrastructure cannot support them, and you’re saying that’s ok? You think its unfair that 7/8 ppl should change their way to accomodate the extra 1?! That’s what’s wrong with your country, and this world for that matter, in this day and age. You’re so self obsessed with your own problems and lives that you forget you share the planet with 6 other billion people, and countless generations beyond that in the future. When you finally realise that the threat from terrorists and other nations is SO SO SO MINUTE then maybe your government will adjust its budgetry spending and focus less on harming and more on saving humanity.

Most worthless article ever.

Sheesh, had no idea that people were commenting here. Let’s start from the top.

Omar sez: Ugh, if you want to prove your case don’t use ugly 3D pie charts. first of all, volumes are harder to compare than lines, and the way you rotated the axes is very deceptive as well. as an ‘analyst’ you should understand you yourself are lying with data.

That’s crap. It’s the default PowerPoint orientation, and the ratios are obvious and clear. If you don’t like it, plot it yourself. You’ll find immediately that 18 million out of 290 million is much smaller than 45 million out of 290 million. Duh. And if you want to dispute the case, complain about the data not the plot.

A multitude of folks: 36 million is still a big number

The point is to make policy decisions based on fact, so that we are redressing the correct problem. The universal health care rhetoric is based on an incorrect statement of the problem. If the problem is “45 million people chronically deprived of health insurance” the revisions you would make to the health care system are much larger than those if it is only 18 million, and if some COBRA-type subsidy would help the other 18 million.

Astyanix sez: 1.) In your section, “Uninsured for how long?”, you’re combining figures from the 2005 Census report to 1998 numbers in the CBO report. It’s similar to an apples and oranges comparison, so your 2nd pie chart is inaccurate.

Your criticism is true but does not change the argument. This is the best and only data we have, and the comparison using the 1993 and 1998 numbers was recommended by the 2005 report authors. We can wish for contemporary data, but we simply don’t have it.

In other words, the people whom you term “in between insurance” are actually part of the “insured”, and your 2nd pie chart is inaccurate.

This was almost a good argument, but the original numbers stand. The numbers you quote are for one form of insurance - if you add the numbers for all insurances (from Figure 6, for instanct) you find:

67.7% covered by private insurance, and 27.3% covered by gov’t insurance, and 15.9% uninsured

That adds to more than 100%, because they’re double-counting partially insured people (as both insured and uninsured) and doubly insured people. But the main reason I used the approach I did was because the authors recommended it:

Compared with other national surveys, the CPS ASEC’s estimate of the number of people without health insurance more closely approximates the number of people who were uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year.

Astyanix sez: I think it is a reasonable assumption that people in long-term care hospitals and nursing homes have higher rates if non-insurance.

I don’t follow why you would feel comfortable with that assumption.

nhaver sez: I seem to remember something in our history about people being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. While healthcare wasn’t specifically mentioned I’m sure it could be easily considered and extension under the “life” clause and possibly the “pursuit of happiness”.

Then you probably won’t enjoy this essay entitled: “Is Health Care a “Right?”

I suppose it goes without saying that I conclude that it’s not.

Sam blurts: So what if it’s only 18million when you break it down, that’s still 18,000,000 PEOPLE, as in fellow human beings, that cannot get insurance because your country’s infrastructure cannot support them, and you’re saying that’s ok?

Maybe you should read the post before you type. From the post:

Those 18 million people are the “chronically uninsured,” and are the people that policy changes should address. Or, I should say more accurately, they are the only group of people whose plight warrants major legislative intervention.

The point is that there are different levels of fixes that can be employed, and we need to choose the correct level. Finding a health care solution for 18 million people doesn’t require changing the health care system for all 290 million people.

And how, may I ask, do you suppose is a fair way for the entire population to support those 18 million without drastically changing the current system? How do you suggest those 18million will get the support and funding to get health insurance, or equal benefits in allowing them to get medical care when they require it? Would you, the 262 million blessed with insurance be willing to subsidise those meaningless 6%?

And how, may I ask, do you suppose is a fair way for the entire population to support those 18 million without drastically changing the current system?

That’s an interesting question, but isn’t the subject of this post. This post is simply pointing out that the “45 million” number is being used inappropriately to justify a wholesale revamping of the health care system - a revamping that could have serious negative effects on the quality and distribution of health care.

But to suggest some options that are less aggressive, one might consider expanding Medicare & Medicaid coverage, extending COBRA benefits, subsidizing COBRA plans for qualifying participants, increased health surveillance in public schools, and/or universal coverage for preventative medicine. Just spitballing.

The real problem, as some in this thread have pointed out, is that medical care is incredibly expensive. There are a variety of reasons for that, but the biggest reason is “because it can be.” The question is, how much will the quality and innovation in the industry suffer if we start trying to control those costs? There’s no well-defined answer for that, so I’m reluctant to see invasive tinkering with the system if it can be avoided.

Geoff, I see where an awful lot of commenters didn’t read much past where you discounted non-citizens, and they missed it where you took it on down to 18 million from 45 million.

Which is still a lot, but is that alone grounds for socialized medicine, and giving everyone Walter Reed-style care?

Here is a more constructive post discussing raising the minimum standard of health care for kids. It’s 7 months old, but nothing has changed since then. From the post, which was written to chastise conservatives about our lack of a proactive agenda to address health care issues:

We need a conservative push for health screening and improved nutritional coverage for children. If we can accomplish that via the private sector, all the better. But we should be prepared to accept it as the lesser of two evils if expansion of federal programs is required. And it would be fairly painless: doubling the size of the nutrition programs listed above would be ~ $17 billion/year, and wouldn’t cripple the health industry like the Democrats’ programs would. Hopefully it wouldn’t cost that much.

Which is still a lot, but is that alone grounds for socialized medicine, and giving everyone Walter Reed-style care?

Exactly the point. We need to properly define the magnitude of the problem, and exactly what the problem is. The rhetoric from reformation advocates is just confusing the issue.

I am from Italy (an European country), and I can talk about the Italian health-care system. We have socialized care, and each individual can choose, in ADDITION (not in alternative) to the public system, to have also private health care, paying for it.

It is true that our system has many problems: in some hospitals you have to wait a lot to receive care, and there are episodes of money waste and bad care. But I think this is endemic to any system of any type.

BUT

We’ll never give up this system for an US-like one. If some politician would try to eliminate universal health care there would be a revolution. And it’s no matter of being socialist or conservative, even the most nostalgic fascist here won’t give up universal care.

The crucial point is that, EVEN IF YOU PAY FOR PRIVATE HEALTH CARE, in case of emergency, an accident, or a sickness not covered by your private insurance, you can still have public health care, without documents, bureaucracy, or any pre-approval of anything. And there is NOBODY that can decide whether you can have health-care or not, as it happens in the US-system. This is unconceivable here.

I repeat, there are many problems in our system, but none of them is worth enough to resolve by eliminating universal health care. I prefer to wait 1hr more in a hospital, or a day more to book a dentist visit, rather than seeing somebody dropped out of a hospital because he has no money to pay or because some HMO decided he’s not worth to be cured.

Just a personal note:

You live in a free country, so you decide about your things. We have no right to interfere (but hopefully we can cooperate in many issues ;), but I can tell you that, regarding the health care system, the “average european” look at you incredoulosly, asking himself: How can you (Americans) accept your situation? How can you foresee when you’ll be sick or wich sickness you will take? Even righteous people with a healthy life style get sick and have accidents, how can you think they don’t deserve health care? Isn’t it humiliating to have some private money-making company decide whether you have access to health-care or not?

Some misconceptions: - Our system is not for free, we pay for it with taxes. Acceptable taxes. - There is no obscure government funcionnaire coming into your private life that decides about your health care. Just doctors, paid by the government, free to decide about the cures, exactly as your doctors. - Don’t always think about Europe as a whole unique entity. Italy is very different from Germany, wich is different from France or Denmark. Europe is something that try to mark the common points of all these countries, and dialogate about policies, respecting each nation identity.

PS: I hope my english was not so bad ;)

What?? 36.000.000 is not an impressive number!?!? You are stark raving mad.

What?? 36.000.000 is not an impressive number!?!? You are stark raving mad.

And another uncomprehending soul wanders through without reading carefully or thoroughly.

Cute.

- An American isn’t necessarily a citizen of the USA (source: Princeton).

- The temporarily uninsured are, judging from your information, a permanent group with a changing memberbase. In other words, even though these 18 million might not be uninsured for long, there are always 18 miilion people uninsured on top of the chronically uninsured.

- The 6% chronically uninsured American citizens are obviously the weakest group. Helping this group is the “tyranny of the minority”? Only a right-winger (most likely a libertarian or liberal, though American conservatives of course also fall into this group) could come up with such a demented reasoning. The tyranny of the majority is preferable? The majority decides and the minority just has to take it? That’s going to work in a civilised society…

- Conclusion: There are always 45 million people in the US (Princeton definition of American) who are uninsured. Your numbers are meaningless.

Thank you for this informative and thought provoking post. As a fully insured (at the moment, because I’m healthy and employed) individual, I agree that our highly efficient, wonderfully fair, marvelously managed and best helth care system in the world is so nearly perfect that to make any changes to it at all might threaten the wealth and welfare of insurance executives all over the country. Please rush your address and phone number to me ASAP - I have a lucrative and iron clad land investment opportunity that I’d love to share with you!

I betcha for the half-a-trillion bucks we’ve spent in Iraq we could easily insure those 18 million “Chronic Uninsured” folks.

Not very cute.

An American isn’t necessarily a citizen of the USA

Obfuscatory. Taxpayers have no responsibility to minister to the health care problems of non-citizens. When candidates for office say “Americans,” however, they had better mean citizens. If word gets out that the Democrats are proposing health care coverage for non-citizens, and calling them “Americans,” they will have torpedoed their chances in 2008.

there are always 18 miilion people uninsured

That point was already made, but you’ve missed the not-very-subtle point that the remedy for that 18 million can be entirely different than the remedy for the chronically uninsured. It should also be noted that in times between insurance coverage, many people opt to delay treatments for a few months until they get coverage, or to pay for medical care themselves, since their costs are likely to be less than COBRA coverage would cost.

Helping this group is the “tyranny of the minority”?

Now you’ve failed to read the same passage that Sam missed. I clearly state that the situation of the chronically uninsured is a legitimate target for legislative intervention. It just doesn’t require replacing the entire health care system.

The majority decides and the minority just has to take it?

Uh, yeah. That’s what elections and voting are all about. The phrase “tyranny of the majority” is widely known for exactly that reason.

- Conclusion: Your statements are irrelevant to the point of this post.

I agree that our highly efficient, wonderfully fair, marvelously managed and best helth care system in the world

Nice strawman. Nobody made any of those claims.

“That’s an interesting question, but isn’t the subject of this post. This post is simply pointing out that the “45 million” number is being used inappropriately to justify a wholesale revamping of the health care system - a revamping that could have serious negative effects on the quality and distribution of health care.”

So what? Is that not the point of a discussion and an article such as this, to highlight the problem at hand and then to identify further points to discuss? I find all of your objectivity to changing the healthcare system very bemusing, but then I spose you are American and you are an intriguingly odd nation.

I fail to see how, with all of the precedents and benchmarks available from other nations, you could screw up your health system by supporting a socialised system, if anything quite the opposite as you will have less money lining the pocket of rich insurance exec’s and more money being put back into the industry. Sure, your tax may rise a little but honestly, so what? If we can manage and still have one of the healthiest economies in the world I fail to see how good ole uncle sam can’t.

“What they are saying is that they want to radically change the way health insurance is handled in this country because 1 person in 8 is without insurance. That is, they want to force 7 out of 8 people to change their health care system to accommodate that one person.”

This, in a nut shell, is the difference between the radical right and the rest of the United States. Are we a country that cares about all its citizens or are we individuals who only care about ourselves? Its clear which way this Bozo thinks. How about you?

Is that not the point of a discussion and an article such as this, to highlight the problem at hand and then to identify further points to discuss?

On the Internet, I have found that trying to establish agreement on one point before moving on is the only way to avoid having to debate the same point over and over again. That is why I’m so specific as to the point of the post.

I fail to see how, with all of the precedents and benchmarks available from other nations, you could screw up your health system by supporting a socialised system

Well, we could end up with a doctor & nurse shortage like the UK has. We could slow the rate of drug discovery, procedural advances, and new technology development to that of the rest of the world. We could increase bureaucracy, aggravating our governmental bloat until we enjoy the same inefficiencies of many EU countries. We could have a health care system that is subject to the social engineering whims of the latest administration. We could have equipment and facility shortages, and the life-threatening treatment delays that are reported from Canada and the UK.

Just some worries.

This, in a nut shell, is the difference between the radical right and the rest of the United States. Are we a country that cares about all its citizens or are we individuals who only care about ourselves?

Another moron who didn’t read the post. What is it with you guys? The post clearly states that we should consider means of helping those who are currently falling through the cracks of the system. It simply points out that helping them does not require a complete restructuring of the system.

Surely some of you can read? Not JoeVet, obviously, but someone?

You’re a terrible person.

“Well, we could end up with a doctor & nurse shortage like the UK has. We could slow the rate of drug discovery, procedural advances, and new technology development to that of the rest of the world. We could increase bureaucracy, aggravating our governmental bloat until we enjoy the same inefficiencies of many EU countries. We could have a health care system that is subject to the social engineering whims of the latest administration. We could have equipment and facility shortages, and the life-threatening treatment delays that are reported from Canada and the UK.”

I see your point, and obviously there are flaws to the system (what system doesn’t have?) but I personally feel providing health care to all of your citizens far outweighs the cons of not doing so. I also fail to see how it would slow any research & development when you go from a profit making system to non-profit, if anything more money would be available to such areas.

I personally feel providing health care to all of your citizens far outweighs the cons of not doing so

And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to improve coverage for all our citizens. All I’m saying is that we can accomplish that by patching the current system, rather than replacing it. At least we should try that first.

There are many good points being made here, but also a lot of horrible ones. A lot of what arguments I had churning in my head have already been voiced by many of the posts here, so I will share some of my stories.

I am only 22, but can already see that the healthcare system is in dire need of reform. I just got out of college with $40,000 in loans. So of course this is the perfect time to drop my coverage, as my parents no longer feel they should support me in any way and I have a crapload of money already owed.

But wait!!! COBRA comes to save the day!! I had a 6 month contractor position, of course no insurance was offered, so I decided I did not want to risk not having insurance in case I had an accident, so I shelled out $3,000 for 6 months of insurance (No dental or vision either). 6 months of insurance that I shouldn’t have gotten, as I only had to visit a walk-in clinic once. Oh, but my $3,000 worth of insurance covered that visit, right? WRONG! There is a $1,000 IN NETWORK deductable, so alas, none of it was covered.

Oh, sure, I could have gotten better insurance for COBRA, but it would have cost more than TWICE as much. $6,000 is a LOT for a young person just coming out of college, who is healthy and probably doesn’t need insurance, but needs it anyway just in cast they get in a bad accident or deathly sick.

So, I have a new job now, which does offer insurance. YEAH! I don’t have worry at all now, I can breathe easily. WRONG! This new insurance, which I had NO CHOICE at all selecting, is capped at $15,000. You heard me right, if I get in an accident, or need surgery, and my bills exceed $15,000, I have to make up the difference. Suffice to say, I don’t feel any more at ease than I did with the crappy COBRA insurance.

So, I say to everyone who is against “socialized” medicine, WHAT ABOUT MEDICARE?

You trust your parents and grandparents to medicare, a socialized medicine program, and it seems to be working just fine. As Michael Moore pointed out, the overhead/administrative costs for medicare are 1%, while for private health insurance it can range between 20% and 35%. So, why can’t we and our employers pay the government for health insurance instead of the private companies. You CANNOT argue that it would cost less due to the fact that there is no profit to be made, and there would be a huge savings on needless paperwork and the bureaucracy you right-wingers seem to hate, but in reality adore.

As to the individuals here who seem to think they are above other countrymen with less means, just WHO do you think you are? The constitution does give us rights to “life” and the “pursuit of happiness”, both of which are contingent on proper healthcare. The individuals without jobs, who don’t have their employers to pay the government for healthcare, and do not have the means to cover themselves, can easily be covered if Bush’s tax cuts were rolled back and/or if we used the money we are currently throwing at Iraq in vain.

How can you people, many of whom are supposedly religious, be so callous and inhumane? Didn’t your beloved savior, Jesus Christ, walk around healing and feeding those who needed it? It doesn’t take a religious person to realize we should help our fellow humans, at least in the most basic level when they most need it. But apparently it does take a religious person to be so selfish and cruel.

overhead, administrative costs for medicare are 1%

giggle

Then let’s put passport processing and the TSA under medicare, cause those guys apparently know how to run an organization right!

overhead, administrative costs for medicare are 1%

giggle

Then let’s put passport processing and the TSA under medicare, cause those guys apparently know how to run an organization right!

Might have underquoted it, but like I said, you can’t argue that these admin costs pale in comparison to that of private health insurance companies.

this comes down to one distinction. Is health care a right or a priveledge? In my opinion it is a right.

this comes down to one distinction. Is health care a right or a priveledge? In my opinion it is a right.

See my link in the comment at 1:23 am.

You say GIVEN to residents of other nations, and by given you mean raising our income tax to over 50% for middle class to pay for everyones. Socialism does a number on the bottom line, no matter what you think the benefits are.

You say GIVEN to residents of other nations, and by given you mean raising our income tax to over 50% for middle class to pay for everyones. Socialism does a number on the bottom line, no matter what you think the benefits are.

How delusional are you to assume that the income taxe for the middle class would rise to over 50% just to have universal health care? Like I said before, if employers shared some of the burden, which they are currently doing, that would cover a big majority of the people (7/8 according to the author of this article). The money to cover the others who are uninsured (1/8 according to the author) can easily be obtained by repealing the tax cut to the top 1% of the nation and perhaps a SLIGHT tax increase. Also, if we practice more preventative care, the cost per person will decrease as everyone will have access to health care and won’t wait until they are practically dying to go to the hospital to receive treatment.

Okay, so I’ll admit that I haven’t been through the all the comments. If this is repetitive, then I apologize.

First, a plea. Please people, for the love of reason, stop referencing economics unless you yourself are a trained economist (by which I mean you hold a graduate degree in economics and/or work as an economist - a partially completed undergraduate degree does not an economist make).

Now a few points. The author is quite correct in removing non-citizens from the picture. Generally speaking, socialized health care does not cover aliens. Yes, it is true that they will not be denied treatment, but they will likely receive a bill as a result (which they are unlikely to be able to pay, but that is neither here nor there). This is the case in Canada, for example.

However, the author is incorrect in removing those “between insurance” (regardless of the actual size of this population). Though the survey data correspond to “a point in time”, one must remember that the law of large numbers suggests that on any given day, 45 million Americans (36 M excluding non-citizens) are uninsured. So, while the same people may not be uninsured from one day to the next, the number is still correct (assuming away any biases surrounding the date of the survey, such as the day of the week - i.e. are people more likely to be uninsured on a Sunday? - or the month - e.g. perhaps coverage is more likely to lapse at the end of December. In the absence of compelling evidence or theory, however, these can be safely ignored).

There, I’m glad I got that off my chest. Please continue.

Hey Geoff,

I just read your article, and it did not seem to answer the question of whether healthcare is a right or not, but simply state, at length, that liberals view it as a right and conservatives don’t. This is already pretty obvious to most people. Although I know your stance already, I want to know why you feel that way? Do you not agree that if someone is sick, hurt, or dying, that they do not have the right to life or pursuit of happiness? Would you want the fire or police departmen to be private, wherein they would let your house burn down if you didn’t pay or have fire insurace and let criminals rob your house or worse if you didn’t pay police insurance? The reason those institutions are socialised is they benefit society as a whole. For example, if they let your house burn, it might cause the fire to progress and more damage or injury to occur. Similarly, if an individual is sick and they let them go without medical treatment, they might pass the disease or sickness, if contagious, to more of the population. In tht respect, it is in society’s best interest to offer free universal healthcare to all.

We are at two extremes here. A) Continue health care as is. B) Socialize health care.

Obviously the current system is flawed. The insurance companies prey on the fact that everyone is afraid of death, so they can change rates as they please with little or no change in the number of people they insure. Hospitals have to hike rates up to cover doctors that might get sued because said insurance companies encourage legal battles.

On the other hand, giving everyone health care is not exactly as easy as it seems. Taxes in all areas would be raised and profits at hospitals would drop due to performing operations at cost for the government. Also, there would be longer waiting lines for everything medical. Imagine the emergency room (hours of waiting for immediate problems) for every single thing that happens at the hospital. Now add 18-45 million people to that system. Not a pretty picture. In Britain sometimes you have to wait months for a heart surgery that will fix a problem that could kill you at any time. Everyone pretends like the only thing different would be whether or not you have to pay for insurance/health care, when in reality the whole system would change.

Maybe I am a pessimist but either option does not sound very hopeful.

Also, there would be longer waiting lines for everything medical. Imagine the emergency room (hours of waiting for immediate problems) for every single thing that happens at the hospital.

While it is possible that there will be longer wait times for doctor’s visits or non-elective procedures, I do not understand the logic of why wait times at the hospital would be increased if there was universal health care. There wouldn’t be more accidents, and hence patients at the emergency room, if healtcare was universal. The same number of people would be at the emergency room regardless of a change in the actual health care system. Actually, you can argue that if there was universal healthcare, emergency room visits would DECREASE because more people would go for routine checkups and problems, such as heart failure, could be diagnosed before they become serious enough to cause a heart attack, and subsequent expensive emergency room visit. Also, have you ever been to a busy emergency room? As is, you currently have to wait for hours anyway if you have a non life-threatening ailment, such as a broken bone.

I don’t see why people are obsessed with wait times as they are already bad under the current system. I called two weeks ago to make an appointment for a routine eye exam with my optometrist, and they are scheduling appointments for OCTOBER!

We only rank highest in healthcare satisfaction because we simply don’t have a basis for comparison and like to think we are better than everyone else.

The results of this post leave me to conclude the following: 1) We shouldn’t care about the 9 million non-americans; 2) 36 million people don’t matter in part because: 3) The ‘between insurance’ crowd doesn’t matter because they’ll find insurance, ultimately; 4) 1 in 15 people is irrelevant. Do we care about people? Clearly not Geoff. I mean, he probably thinks he’s just “clearing the air”, but I suspect he actually knows he’s just trying to reassure his readers that we shouldn’t care about everyone.

BRP:

Try the explanation here: The Big Brother System of London Comes to New York.

Be sure to read the comments, where people ask essentially the same thing. If that doesn’t satisfy you, I’ll take another swing at it.

One American citizen without healthcare is too many. I can’t believe you’d even split hairs about this issue. What about all the people with health care that are denied life saving operations on technicalities simply to save the insurance company a buck and make the managers get their yearly bonuses. You need to rethink what it means to be human.

For your information, health care was always a right in this country before the HMOs took over. Every community had a doctor and they treated everyone in the community. In exchange, the community provided them with all their needs. In terms of Native Americans, every community had a shaman who knew how to set bones and all the herbal remedies you could gather within walking distance. Healthcare is a right.

Furthermore, upwards of 50% of bankruptcies in this country are triggered by medical problems.

We are not talking about socialism here. I love the “Red Scare” tactic to this debate. We are not talking about paying any more than we already do. In fact, if healthcare were to be taken over by the government, then you would pay less in taxes than you do in premiums today. Why you ask? Simple, it would cut out the 15% to 30% overhead that insurance companies give to their stock holders.

The bottom line is health care should never work under a for profit system. Do we let the police, firefighters, or Army run as for profit organizations? No, and you’d never even consider doing so either. The is no difference here.

Randy Thelen: Read my comments at 1:30 am and 2:37 am. Or actually read the post.

Fast Eddy: Your comment was addressed at 4:39 am.

Pessimist said: We are at two extremes here. A) Continue health care as is. B) Socialize health care.

The point of this post is that there is an enormous middle ground between those extremes, and that it is likely that the current problems with health care coverage can be addressed without traveling all the way from A to B. See my comment at 2:16 am for some examples of intermediate solutions.

One American citizen without healthcare is too many.

Someone didn’t read the post.

Wait, so you’re saying you’re cool with 1 in 15 people in YOUR family being “chronically” without health insurance? Would you like to volunteer a brother, sister, maybe an aunt to take coverage away from to prove your point?

Geoff,

I understand your views that you feel that you should reap the benefits of your hard work and labor. Why should anybody piggyback off your hard work and success? Although I agree with your statement on some level, I still hold my conviction that in a modern society such as today, when we have the resources, technology, and (in some cases) the will to provide healthcare to every man, woman and child, that we should do so. As is, there are plenty of things in the Social Contract which have little or no benefit to me. Likewise, I am sure there are plenty of things you pay for with your tax dollars that have no benefit to you. However, you still pay them, don’t you? Universal Healthcare will benefit everybody. Only the richest people might be able to say that UH would not benefit them in some way. Yes, you might have to “pay for the benefit of another”, but the fact of the matter is, the exact opposite would be true if you underwent a hardship. If you lost your job, and subsequently your insurance, then you would benefit if there were universal healthcare. If you had cancer, or another serious illness, and couldn’t work or pay your copays/deductibles, you would benefit. Similarly, if that happened to a family member of yours, they would benefit as well, which would in turn benefit you and your gene pool.

There are not many other programs out there that your tax dollars pay for that would benefit every american citizen. Universal Healthcare will benefit everybody and it is one tax that I would have no problem paying. I understand your enthusiasm for your individual rights and wholeheartedly agree with you upon that. However, I disagree with you on the fact that UH will infringe upon these rights in any way. In fact, I believe that it will only further my individual rights as me or any of my friends or family will never be rejected medical care. I will always be provided with the care needed to ensure I will live the longest, healthiest, and happiest life possible.

Wait, so you’re saying you’re cool with 1 in 15 people in YOUR family being “chronically” without health insurance?

Uh, no Justin, that’s not what the post said. Try reading the actual words in the post.

you can’t argue that these admin costs pale in comparison to that of private health insurance companies.

I could, if I felt like arguing with a fact-sloppy emotive puff. I’ll give ya a little.

Operational expense is a drain on profitability, and is properly managed in a healthy company. There’s NO such incentive in a bureacracy. None. Even a 403© hospital and/or clinic has to watch the bottom line.

Federal and state programs are a drain on the private sector as well, consider for example the State of Maine’s 2005 implementation of a Medicaid claim payment system (whose wheels promptly feel off). Payments ground to a halt, forcing doctors, clinics, pharmacies and hospital to scramble for cash flow. Patients were refused treatment, turned away. Why? Because fully one-third of all healthcare dollars in the state of Maine flow through this system. 1.5 billion a year.

http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id;876169055;fp;4;fpid;1937;pf;1

It was a non-trivial event.

This is what government does to healthcare.

As is, there are plenty of things in the Social Contract which have little or no benefit to me. Likewise, I am sure there are plenty of things you pay for with your tax dollars that have no benefit to you.

This was addressed in the comments of that post. I really don’t want to take this thread in that direction, but if you want to make some comments over there, I’d be happy to respond. It is one of my favorite topics, in fact.

I’m pretty sure you wasted your time in writing up this article.

Dave,

So you’re willing to give up on Universal Healthcare because of an IT problem? Are you kidding me?! When your hard drive crashes, do you just throw your whole damned computer out? Just because there were technical problems that caused massive failures, doesn’t mean that if the proper steps were taken, a reliable system could be implemented. This should be a learning experience to get the right people, take the correct steps in implementing and testing the system, and monitoring it consistently for errors.

Yes, I am emotive, because I find it absurd how callous people can be. Also, what facts of mine are sloppy?

Yes, private health insurance companies have a large incentive to lower operational expenses; however, they have an even larger incentive to increase profits. They do this by not only lowering operational expenses, but by denying care! They have countless employees whose job consists of screening people for pre-existing conditions, determining if a patient should be approved for treatment their doctor deems necessary, and reviewing medical history for possible pre-existing conditions that would allow them to drop a patient that was lowering their profit.

If other countries can do it, I have confidence that we can as well. I can’t believe that you have such negativity in your country’s abilities, especially in citing one IT screw-up as a basis for this.

No, I’m willing to fight to prevent it because I think it is immoral and unnecessary.

Every moron argument I’ve read here refuses to acknowledge two points geoff makes, one, that the chronically uninsured need assistance, and two, that the severity of the issue is overblown, and does not warrant a “turn the damn thing on it’s head, scrap it all, socialize it” solution.

Honestly, why is that so hard to fathom?

By “sloppy facts” I actually meant you were “making shit up”, which you seem to believe is some form of enlightenment. It’s not, it’s just being ignorant.

Uhh, Sparky, let me tell you about ‘Between Insurance’. I have seizures in my medical history. Haven’t had one in 8 years, and have only ever had 3 or 4, but it means insurance companies won’t underwrite me. If I CAN get insurance, it won’t cover me if I have ANOTHER seizure, nor will it cover any other pre-existing condition.

I can’t get ‘regular’ insurance, I get deflected to state ‘risk pools’ which means my rates are 2x-3x as much as anyone else in the market - for less coverage, yet I still qualify as ‘insured’ because I make enough that I can suck up the cost. To be clear, I’m not poor or downtrodden, I’m a software engineer, and I make good money for what I do.

There is a lot more at stake here than just the ‘uninsured’. There are my parents, who can’t retire because they a: need the insurance, and b: need the income to pay for the insurance and meds… and again, they aren’t poor, they are hard working, educated middle class folks.

It is inexcusable for a nation such as ours to allow anyone who is otherwise hardworking and responsible to be financially ruined just because they get sick. I was once quite skeptical of socialized medicine, but i have reached the conclusion that the horror stories we are always quoted about Canada and EU can be no worse than watching a friend lose her home and her savings while fighting for her life against cervical cancer, and listening to her being told that if she had enough savings and income to keep her house, she could not qualify for medicaid. Lets not even discuss how it affected her son.

And as far as the boogey man of a ‘bureaucrat’ making my medical decisions, I’d rather have an indifferent bureaucrat whose job it was to get me treatment than a talented, motivated, well paid and educated case manager whose job it was to find a way NOT to get me treatment… and that assumes that you don’t realize that it’s the doctors who make the medical decisions in western countries.

The market fails in this instance because there is too much incentive to limit or deny care. There is a fundamental conflict between the mission of maintaining and recovering health , and that of ‘maximizing shareholder value’. An insurance company should never have profit as a measure of success. If they do show a profit, it should be plowed back into the system in the form of premium rebates, research grants, or limited rewards to staff members for promoting the health of the insured.

I’m as big a fan of Milton Friedman as anyone, and a Libertarian to the bone, but in this country, the market is corrupt. Everyone, including the insurance companies, has forgotten that Friedman’s mantra was 3 words ( ENLIGHTENED self interest ) , not just 2 ( self interest ).

Amazing. A room full of dorks who do not understand the competitive nature of capitalism, and why you must fight to earn the healthcare business of your potential customers.

No, let’s please let mommy take care of us. Mommy can do it! I can suck the tit till I’m 67.

At which point mommy will decide your cancer ain’t worth the money and fuck you.

Socialists! I know why you don’t understand this. Your brains aren’t wired to fathom it. You’ve had the government nipple all of your lives.

We prefer not.

Regardless of how you dissect the numbers the fact stands that 18,000 people died last year because they either couldn’t afford medical care or their medical care was denied by their HMO. That’s 6 times the number who died in 9/11 and that 18,000 is happening every year while we spend nearly a trillion dollars on the War on Terror we could have actually saved 18,000 lives a year by spending that money on the War for HMO Profits. I guess preventing those 18,000 deaths is evil socialism and those people need to die because otherwise capitalism and profits might suffer and the mega-rich might lose a percentage or two of their wealth.

cite, please brent?

Regardless of how you dissect the numbers the fact stands that 18,000 people died last year because they either couldn’t afford medical care or their medical care was denied by their HMO.

Once again, RTFP. Show me in the post where it says that these people should not have coverage. You won’t be able to, because the post says these people should get coverage.

I don’t mean to be rude, I know “max” asserted this. I’d just like to dig into the facts.

I’ll even give euro-bhp and brent a hug while we do the hard work of understanding facts.

c’mere fellas

I don’t mean to be rude, I know “max” asserted this. I’d just like to dig into the facts.

I’ve seen the same number at some sites, but I don’t know its pedigree. It would be interesting to see it in some sort of context, like a comparison to how many people were saved because they got treatment that they couldn’t have afforded.

According to the Institute of Medicine, “lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage.” Insuring America’s Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004. http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175

The numbers broken down still do not paint an accurate picture. 50% of all the bankruptcies in America are due to catastropic medical costs—do people think families should be ruined because somebody had the temerity to get cancer or Parkinsons? That number isn’t in the aforementioned equation of turning the industry upside down for one in 15. The money we spend to cover the uninsured is astronomical compared to having covered their basic needs in the first place; they won’t have their insulin covered and if they can’t pay for it tough but if the lack of insulin causes their kidneys to be destroyed they will then be taken care of. Paying for a life time of insulin is far, far cheaper than paying for a life time of dialysis not to mention somebody on dialysis isn’t likely to be able to work effectively, the whole three times a week at the hospital thing coupled with a weakened body, whereas somebody with working kidneys and on insulin is. That cost is not covered in the whole turning the industry upside down for one in 15 people.

Preventive medicine should be our nation’s rallying point as it would reduce the cost of medicine and reduce the cost of everybody’s insurance premiums but that’d mean less money for the insurance execs so they will never push for something like that; they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming just like the auto industry that claimed seat belts were too expensive then claimed air bags were too costly just like they claim they can’t make more fuel effecient cars. It’s the same reason big pharma doesn’t investigate cheap, natural remedies—they cannot be patented and therefore aren’t worth it to their bottom line regardless of how many lives it could help or save.

We don’t have to increase taxes to cover the country, we just have to take private insurers out of the equation as we already spend, per person, almost double than what they spend per person in socialized countries. And if you think that’s a bad idea keep in mind that medicaid/medicare is one of the most effecient plans in America with less than 3 cents on the dollar going to overheard while private insurers suck up over 15 cents on the dollar—so much for the fallaacious idea that private industry is more capable than the government. And we are already rationing health care. We don’t like to think so but we do. HMO’s deny coverage all the time, which is rationing. People need surgeries or prescriptions but can’t afford them, which is also rationing. We have the worst life expectancy for an industrialized country, worst infanty mortality, and worst wait times to see a doctor for a non-emergency situation. We rank #37 in the world for health care with our $7000 a year per person (It’ll be almost $13,000 by 2016 at current growth rates) while Cuba, spending a meager $225, ranks 38 due to an emphasis on preventive medicine and universal coverage. (Not saying Cuba is a great place, just saying it’s pathetic we’re barely better than Cuba after spending 30 times more than they do. “World Health Organization Assesses The World’s Health Systems,” Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000.) Granted, if you have plenty of money the care is top notch, but if you fall in the middle of the middle class or lower that type of care will either bankrupt you or isn’t affordable.

What I’m saying is the 1 in 15 number ignores a myriad of other factors. Firstly, the CDC says 54.5 million were without insurance at least a part of the year last year. The number of uninsured is increading each year so that number will only grow especially since more and more companies won’t provide insurance and are discontinuing their retirees’ insurance plans by declaring bankruptcy. Private insurers are bilking the government out of money, HCA alone is being forced to pay back over 600 million dollars in fake medicare/medicaid claims. Canadians live 2.7 years longer than Americans with their health care “rationing” Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006 at 283. And the French out live us by 2.1 years and the British by 1 year. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf. And even with all the money to spend we do a bad job: American diabetes rates for wealthy Americans is at 8.2% while poor Brits are at 7.3% Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006;295:2037-2045. And, we stupidly spend $400 billion a year on administrating this hodge podge health care system fiasco that lets people die for profits and won’t cover basic care but will cover the disasters the lack of basic care creates. Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Costs of Health Care Administration, N Engl J Med 2003;349:768-75 Is restructuring the health care industry worth saving 400 billion that could returned to the people? Should we keep the system and continue to let over half a million families go bankrupt every year because of medical bills? Should we refuse to cover basic care, which creates acute, far more costly problems? 1 in 15? This problem effects every American unless you’re in the millionaires’ club.

Again, brentbent, read the post. It advocates fixing the problems in the system. It does not, however, advocate scrapping the system in order to fix those problems.

Maybe it’s just how my brain works, but I find that “Is Health Care a Right?” article purely irrelevant, as I fail to see how in this modern day and age it cannot be a right.

We don’t believe that rights change over time - you either have them as part of your humanity or you don’t. Here is an excerpt from a post at my site:

There are two kinds of rights in the world:

1. Non-interference: the right to do as you will without interference or harassment. “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” fall under this category. As does the right to privacy, right to own property, right to assemble peacefully, freedom of speech, etc.More formally, these rights are known as Natural Rights, Human Rights, and Civil Rights

2. Humanitarian: In an earlier post, I described how the concept of Human Rights was extended by liberal thinkers to include a variety of services, including the rights to food, shelter, medical care, education, and physical and mental safety.

Conservatives and liberals debate the balance between these two sets of rights, with conservatives believing that non-interference rights are preeminent, and liberals countering by saying that social justice requires compromise of non-interference rights to service humanitarian rights. More clearly stated:

Conservatives: Non-interference rights are the only rights that exist. No man should be forced to sacrifice his rights to provide services to another - that is slavery.

Liberals: We must work to cure humanitarian injustice. This requires that those with plenty give up their wealth to aid the needy. Otherwise the needy are forced to live their lives in economic slavery.

It’s quite a difference, and although it serves as the root of many disagreements between liberals and conservatives, it is rarely debated directly.

brent, the Institute of Medicine no more defends that assertion that you do.

Quoting a lobbyist promoting nationalized healthcare does not bless it to the status of a “fact”.

From their website:

The principles for guiding the debate and evaluating various strategies are:

Health care coverage should be universal.

Health care coverage should be continuous.

Health care coverage should be affordable to individuals and families.

The health insurance strategy should be affordable and sustainable for society.

Health insurance should enhance health and well-being by promoting access to high-quality care that is effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered, and equitable.

I no more agree with them than I do you.

If we totally change the system, I wonder what happens to all the companies that support hospital. I work for a company that sells computer systems to hospitals, not tiny desktops, but huge servers that control med orders or lab systems, if the government takes over the hospitals, I can’t see how they would possibly have different systems in many hospitals. I think it may ruin the entire medical support industry. Not only will the software support die, but what about innovation and medical tests and advancements, gone. Many of the nurses and doctors may leave to pursue other areas. We need to stop being so cavalier, with the jobs and careers of theses hundreds and thousands of people. Now the author is suggesting that we look at alternatives for the uninsured citizens of this country and that is a good place to start. It is an alternative idea to the problem.

The problem is for us poor smucks who are to rich to be given health care and too poor to afford our own. Our health system is so screwed up that its DESIGNED so that we can not have a chance of affording it forcing everyone to get insurance.

But its now biting itself in the butt it getting SO expensive that insurance premiums must go up. My dad pays $900 a MONTH for health insurance !!!! How many of you can afford $900 - Well we can BARELY afford it. He has even lost his car in order to make health insurance payments!! How screwed up is that. He paid $42,000 into a car only $12k left and they took it because he missed 2 payments (so much for loyalty) Grand Theft Auto they stole $40k from him no matter how you spin it.

All because he would be DEAD without healthcare.

I pray daily I do not fall ill because I do not have anywhere near the $700 a month it would cost me to get healthcare. (yeah I priced it $700 is about the cheapest and thats with HI copay and prescription copay)

Even on his nearly a grand a month plan they screw with him. They “limit” his insulin to small packages that he has to go buy weekly. Why? because he will have to pay MORE $15 copay’s the more prescriptions he has to fill. So instead of 1 $15 copay a month for a month’s supply they make him go get it 5 times so he has to pay $75 a month.

He currently puts out nearly $450 a month for medications (in small amounts to maximize the copay amount off course) so he pay $1350+ a month for health care.

And you wonder why? I DO NOT BELIEVE that only 45 million people do not have health care. I do not believe that over 250million US citizens are covered. I simply do not believe it. Well I guess a massive chunk of them are on the welfare based healthcare which would explain such numbers.

My sisters old boyfriend gets better health care than my dad does paying $1350+ a month his prescrip copay is $1 and they do not “split it up” to maximize the fee’s Office visits are $5 (my dad pays $50 or more per visit)

I got “limited” care at a previous job once I had to pay $160 per paycheck as my cut of this so $320 a month PLUS $35 per visit. Off course my Doctor took what should have been 3 Visits (1 to figure it out and give me antib’s 2 to fix it and 3 to make sure it was all well) and spread it out over 8 visits. $35 EACH frelling visit.

So to fix my damned ingrown toenail (that I lived with SELF partially fixing for over 7 years got lucky that my bones did not get infected because I could not afford to see a doctor ended up costing me $640 in premiums $280 in office visits and $110 in medications and supplies to Fix a SINGLE god damned ingrown toenail. thats $1030.00 for a FU*&KING Toenail. Lets not even add in the 4 credit cards I almost default on because I could not make payments that month (over $800 in FEES got tacked onto my bill which I got about half removed at the goodness of there hearts already bleeding me for 26-29% which are all almost paid off at which time I should shove them up there proverbial asses) (you might be thinking $800 in fees ? yeah right let me educate you. Submit a payment and have it bounce. $35 fee from the bank $35 fee from the CC company. OWE that means that payment never happened so $35 fee for being late OWE that put you over your limit $35 over limit fee (No I am not kidding YES every one of those fees is exactly #35). YES $35 from the bank and $105 for EACH AND EVERY FRELLING card the payment bounced from. Multiply that by 4 I got the bank records to prove it $820. If I would have been able to remember to STOP those automatic payments and just NOT PAY at all it would have been $70 in fees PER CARD still $280 in fees each month.

My dad helped me out of that jam till I got the toe fixed.

And you think our health care system is not frelled beyond any possible description of reasonable.

Well I guess when your RICH relatively speaking its not such a big deal or when your FORTUNATE enough to have employment where they not only PAY for your health care but also pay for GOOD health care that does not rape you in fees.

Life is pretty frelled up when I have to TURN DOWN a job because I will not be able to AFFORD there health care offerings or have to HUNT for employment specifically seeking adequate health care offerings.

And you think we do not have a health care problem. Well your wrong just for a different reason. Insurance made medicine expensive which made insurance too expensive for the average person to afford.

Health Care coverage should NOT be universal Socialized Health care does not work well. BUT Capitalistic health care ALSO does not work well. What we need is BOTH. we need MINIMUM Health Care to be universal and socialized ie if your a citizen you GET IT as a right of citizenship. PERIOD. and EXPANDED health care to be capitalistic and there should be a MIDDLE ground that is PRACTICALLY affordable to the average American.

Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/

Yep, everyone wants something for free until they realize they’re only going to get what its worth. The Doctors aren’t going to work for free, neither are the nurses, the drugs aren’t going to be free, the hospital will still have all its bills. Of course you’ll just pay the same amount in taxes, which if you don’t pay the government will come and lock you up.