Politics Daily
Inside Politics Daily
Scott Brown and the Palin Path: Will He Choose Brassy or Boring?
Democrats Leave Health Care Behind for Jobs, Toyota, Gays in Military
Murtha Turned Against War, but Not Grab-While-You-Can Politics
Rep. John Murtha, Advocate for Pa. District, Pentagon, Dies at 77
Liz Christman, Enemy of the Passive Voice, Who Rocked Some Jaunty Hats
Is Obama's Search for 'Common Ground' Real?- Tim Tebow's Brilliant Fake Leads to Pro-Life Score
'Snowmageddon' in D.C. -- The Politics, Talk Shows and Snowball Fights Go On
Sarah Palin Serves Tea Party Delegates Red Meat and Certainty
My Left Breast Put Fancy TSA Scanner to the Test
From a Grass Roots Tea Party, a PAC Blooms
At Nashville Tea Party: Saving the Country, Waiting for Palin
Inconvenient Truths on Health Care Reform
There's an elephant in the health care debate room.
PD toolbar!
Make that two elephants.
Come with me in the way-back machine to the year 1900, when ladies wore ankle-length dresses and men rode horses into town. Let's say we're on Main Street somewhere. A neighbor asks a farmer about his mother, and he replies, "She took sick and died. She was 50 years old."
There you have it. Those are the two elephants in the room for debates on Medicare, Social Security and health care reform. Mother took sick (and probably died at home). Average life span of an American in 1900 was 49.2 years.
A timeline of health care history goes back to the turn of the 20th century and summarizes all 10 decades up to the year 2000. According to the timeline, we've been in a "health care crisis" since the 1970s.
But let's go back to 1900 again.
In the little hospital on the prairie, there were no CT scans or MRIs. Doctors preferred cash, but they also accepted payments in goods and services. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish hospitals were founded in part to serve the poor.
Now let's move up to 1935. Social Security was passed into law to help senior citizens, half of whom lived in poverty. The average life span for men was about 59.6 years. For women, about 63.4 years. Retirement benefits began at age 65.
As for the ratio of workers to retirees, in 1945 there were 41.9 covered workers for every Social Security beneficiary. In 2006 the ratio had dropped to just 3.3 for every retiree. It's a wonder checks aren't bouncing as I write this.
Although health insurance dates back to 1847, it wasn't commonplace until the 1940s, when wage and price controls during World War II caused employers to offer insurance benefits to attract workers.
I'll bet today's business owners wish their wartime predecessors had thought of something else. As do their employees. Read Wendy Button's tale of woe: "Health Care Speechwriter for Edwards, Obama & Clinton Without Insurance Now."
Don't get me wrong. Our ability to increase life spans by over 50 percent is a phenomenal achievement. I'm an eight-year survivor of ovarian cancer. Without the medical advances of the last century, I too would have "took sick" and died like the women in 1900.
But facts are facts. What sealed our health-care doom was the failure of government to annually crunch the numbers and make changes every year, matching revenues to costs. Medicare was signed into law in 1965. In the 1970s, medical bills began to skyrocket.
In 1950 health care was 4.5 percent of the gross domestic product. By 2000 the percentage had risen to 14. You could argue that our health is worth 14 percent of GDP. Maybe so. But we still have to pay for it.
In 2003 a drug benefit added billions to the Medicare tab right at the time when the aging of the baby-boom generation would have suggested cuts, not expansion. Unfortunately, cuts in a program as popular as Medicare is political suicide. We "kicked the can down the road," as Sen. Jim DeMint put it.
Two months ago a Medicare trustee report stated that Medicare will go bankrupt in 2017.
There is no easy fix. But easy or not, we'd better find one, and soon. We're running out of time.
Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!
PD toolbar!
Make that two elephants.
Come with me in the way-back machine to the year 1900, when ladies wore ankle-length dresses and men rode horses into town. Let's say we're on Main Street somewhere. A neighbor asks a farmer about his mother, and he replies, "She took sick and died. She was 50 years old."
There you have it. Those are the two elephants in the room for debates on Medicare, Social Security and health care reform. Mother took sick (and probably died at home). Average life span of an American in 1900 was 49.2 years.
A timeline of health care history goes back to the turn of the 20th century and summarizes all 10 decades up to the year 2000. According to the timeline, we've been in a "health care crisis" since the 1970s.
But let's go back to 1900 again.
In the little hospital on the prairie, there were no CT scans or MRIs. Doctors preferred cash, but they also accepted payments in goods and services. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish hospitals were founded in part to serve the poor.
Now let's move up to 1935. Social Security was passed into law to help senior citizens, half of whom lived in poverty. The average life span for men was about 59.6 years. For women, about 63.4 years. Retirement benefits began at age 65.
As for the ratio of workers to retirees, in 1945 there were 41.9 covered workers for every Social Security beneficiary. In 2006 the ratio had dropped to just 3.3 for every retiree. It's a wonder checks aren't bouncing as I write this.
Although health insurance dates back to 1847, it wasn't commonplace until the 1940s, when wage and price controls during World War II caused employers to offer insurance benefits to attract workers.
I'll bet today's business owners wish their wartime predecessors had thought of something else. As do their employees. Read Wendy Button's tale of woe: "Health Care Speechwriter for Edwards, Obama & Clinton Without Insurance Now."
Don't get me wrong. Our ability to increase life spans by over 50 percent is a phenomenal achievement. I'm an eight-year survivor of ovarian cancer. Without the medical advances of the last century, I too would have "took sick" and died like the women in 1900.
But facts are facts. What sealed our health-care doom was the failure of government to annually crunch the numbers and make changes every year, matching revenues to costs. Medicare was signed into law in 1965. In the 1970s, medical bills began to skyrocket.
In 1950 health care was 4.5 percent of the gross domestic product. By 2000 the percentage had risen to 14. You could argue that our health is worth 14 percent of GDP. Maybe so. But we still have to pay for it.
In 2003 a drug benefit added billions to the Medicare tab right at the time when the aging of the baby-boom generation would have suggested cuts, not expansion. Unfortunately, cuts in a program as popular as Medicare is political suicide. We "kicked the can down the road," as Sen. Jim DeMint put it.
Two months ago a Medicare trustee report stated that Medicare will go bankrupt in 2017.
There is no easy fix. But easy or not, we'd better find one, and soon. We're running out of time.
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!
-
PRINT
-
IM
-
E-mail
21 comments
+ add your own
Donna Trussell
Donna Trussell is a poet, fiction writer, and former film critic. Her 2008 poetry collection, What’s Right about What’s Wrong, was published by Helicon Nine... more
Comments (21)
heiraz
9:33AM Oct 9th 2009
That is sum and summary of the whole issue. On the one hand we have republicans screeching about what a failure Medicare is. On the other hand we have Medicare recipients who are among the most satisfied of any insured group. How to make sense of it? The "failure" of Medicare (and its pending insolvency) have nothing at all to do with whether of not it works well, it has everything to do with the Congressional Cassandras and naysayers who call it a failure refusing to PAY for it. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.
RATE THIS COMMENT:
(1)
(1) 
paulnolanemt
10:08AM Oct 9th 2009
We do not need Universal Health Care...It is too expensive.
RATE THIS COMMENT:
(3)
(3) grapefan
10:31AM Oct 9th 2009
Tour opinion has been noted and dismissed. Every other industrialised country has some form of Universal healthcare. This would ensure that all Americans are covered (should be the same package that members of congress receive), it would also take the burden of costs off of employers, allowing them to create jobs in America instead of trimming payrolls to pay for healthcare.
There is nothing more needed in the USA for all of it's CITIZENS!
There is nothing more needed in the USA for all of it's CITIZENS!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-6)
(-6) michem55
11:17AM Oct 9th 2009
This first part of your post "We do not need Universal Health Care" is debatable, while the second part "It is too expensive" is very much true and also the elephant in the room that so many like to dismiss.
I know it has been said before, but I blame the media for this. I have degree(s) in economics + business, and I know many people out there misunderstand the economy because of the media. They don't realize what Obama and Pelosi, who has been destroying it since 2007, have done. Soooooo many journalist who never took an economics course (or failed the one that they took) write articles about the economy and how Bush, Pelosi, and Obama policies impact it.
But these are some true economic facts:
1) It IS possible to set up a progressive tax structure that does not negatively hurt the economy. ( progressive tax, tax people at higher incomes at higher tax rates -- no Republican will admit this )
2) It IS possible to regulate corporations and improve the overall wealth of the economy, and the government should do this in certain ways (I will explain if anyone is curious.)
The next two points are the points that the Liberal media fails to print:
3) A capitalistic market is the best way to create wealth.
4) When a government takes over a section of the economy (like health care) there will be A LOSS of total wealth, ie the economy will suffer as a whole. This fact remains true even when the government only partially gets involved (like with Medicare and Medicaid). So the main reason that health care is so expensive in this country is the fact that the government is already involved. If they take over the health sector completely, it WILL COST MORE. This is an economic fact that cannot be escaped. The economy as a whole will shrink, and someone (probably the middle class) is going to pay the ticket.
The misprinting of facts and information is disturbing. And Obama HAS LIED about there not being a tax increase to support this universal health care – for it is economically impossible for him to be telling the truth. This decision will hurt the economy, and the liberal media is refusing to print that simple fact.
Now, there may be times that it is beneficial for the government to get involved in the "transfer of wealth" from those who are working to those who are struggling, but when we do, we should do so with our eyes open .... and not when the economy is already in the toilet.
I know it has been said before, but I blame the media for this. I have degree(s) in economics + business, and I know many people out there misunderstand the economy because of the media. They don't realize what Obama and Pelosi, who has been destroying it since 2007, have done. Soooooo many journalist who never took an economics course (or failed the one that they took) write articles about the economy and how Bush, Pelosi, and Obama policies impact it.
But these are some true economic facts:
1) It IS possible to set up a progressive tax structure that does not negatively hurt the economy. ( progressive tax, tax people at higher incomes at higher tax rates -- no Republican will admit this )
2) It IS possible to regulate corporations and improve the overall wealth of the economy, and the government should do this in certain ways (I will explain if anyone is curious.)
The next two points are the points that the Liberal media fails to print:
3) A capitalistic market is the best way to create wealth.
4) When a government takes over a section of the economy (like health care) there will be A LOSS of total wealth, ie the economy will suffer as a whole. This fact remains true even when the government only partially gets involved (like with Medicare and Medicaid). So the main reason that health care is so expensive in this country is the fact that the government is already involved. If they take over the health sector completely, it WILL COST MORE. This is an economic fact that cannot be escaped. The economy as a whole will shrink, and someone (probably the middle class) is going to pay the ticket.
The misprinting of facts and information is disturbing. And Obama HAS LIED about there not being a tax increase to support this universal health care – for it is economically impossible for him to be telling the truth. This decision will hurt the economy, and the liberal media is refusing to print that simple fact.
Now, there may be times that it is beneficial for the government to get involved in the "transfer of wealth" from those who are working to those who are struggling, but when we do, we should do so with our eyes open .... and not when the economy is already in the toilet.
RATE THIS COMMENT:
(10)
(10) ettu
10:24AM Oct 9th 2009
The only reason people want to hold on to whatever it is they get from Medicare, is, they no longer have any other options. This program was forced on the people, they bought into the scam, and now they are enslaved by a government loaded with people who care less about the benefits the retired receive. Your elected politicians care only about how THEIR LEGISLATION will increase their own wealth and power, while exempting themselves (as they do with many of the laws written AGAINST the people).
RATE THIS COMMENT: (9)
(9) ettu
10:26AM Oct 9th 2009
NO ONE is saying preserve the status quo. NO ONE! We want TORT REFORM (caps on punitive damages and lawyers fees with the loser paying the winners costs). We want INTERSTATE ACCESS to insurance (compete for our dollars). We want SOME REGULATION and STRICT OVERSIGHT of insurance and drug companies. We want our elected reps to DETECT, INVESTIGATE/PROSECUTE, and ELIMINATE the corruption and waste in SS, Medicare/Medicaid, VA services, and all gov't agencies now operating. We want Congress and the Pres to THROW THEIR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS UNDER THE BUS, and actually do something for the benefit of the American citizens. This is CHANGE WE CAN SUPPORT. Stop protecting those big money people who fund your re-election, and who promise you the means to increase YOUR OWN wealth and power. Show some integrity and do the job you swore to do when you were elected.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (11)
(11) phanntom
10:57AM Oct 9th 2009
A good article that gets at the crux of the issue. Medicare works well for those that are on it. Those funding and servicing it don't see it as being great. Much of the problem of Medicare can be laid back on Congress. They've added to the program regularly but failed to provide the additional funding.
While I believe everyone has a right to healthcare, it's the level of care that each of us has a "right" too that I believe causes the rub. Everyone feels they have a right to the latest and greatest technology available. Not so. Everyone has a right to an education too, but everyone doesn't have a right to private school.
I think if there is some universal care adopted you're going to see much higher unemployment rates as small and medium size businesses close, unable to pay the taxes that are going to be required to pay for it. And, given a time when even the worst off Americans are in better financial shape than the federal gov't is, is not a time to be spending more money.
No gov't program has ever cost what it was projected at...never even close, meaning this is going to cost us much more than is currently quoted. I find it funny, the Congressional Budget Office originally projected the nearly $1-trillion price tag would only be a down payment but after being summoned to the White House "to get their mind straight" now comes back saying the numbers look good and we'll save money over 10 years.
My reservations come from the fact that something this important is trying to be rushed through under the cover of darkness, rather than actually trying to come up with a good plan that's affordable and will accomplish the goals intended and allowing those paying for it, namely the people to study it for themselves. We can't rely on our representatives to actually know what's in there so it's up to us.
When Joe Wilson called the President a liar, he was technically correct. There was no language in the bill that specifically provide coverage for illegals, but there was language that would have allowed for an interpretation allowing it, and coupled with the fact that two amendments had been rejected to use the SAVE program to determine eligibility...one had to assume the intent was to provide coverage. The next day, Obama came out and said language would be put in denying benefits to illegals, and later they came out and said SAVE would be a part of the program.
It could be a great program, but knowing the way gov't works, mostly for those who pay for it, lobbyists, I don't expect much other than a huge financial black-hole to be pouring money we don't have into.
While I believe everyone has a right to healthcare, it's the level of care that each of us has a "right" too that I believe causes the rub. Everyone feels they have a right to the latest and greatest technology available. Not so. Everyone has a right to an education too, but everyone doesn't have a right to private school.
I think if there is some universal care adopted you're going to see much higher unemployment rates as small and medium size businesses close, unable to pay the taxes that are going to be required to pay for it. And, given a time when even the worst off Americans are in better financial shape than the federal gov't is, is not a time to be spending more money.
No gov't program has ever cost what it was projected at...never even close, meaning this is going to cost us much more than is currently quoted. I find it funny, the Congressional Budget Office originally projected the nearly $1-trillion price tag would only be a down payment but after being summoned to the White House "to get their mind straight" now comes back saying the numbers look good and we'll save money over 10 years.
My reservations come from the fact that something this important is trying to be rushed through under the cover of darkness, rather than actually trying to come up with a good plan that's affordable and will accomplish the goals intended and allowing those paying for it, namely the people to study it for themselves. We can't rely on our representatives to actually know what's in there so it's up to us.
When Joe Wilson called the President a liar, he was technically correct. There was no language in the bill that specifically provide coverage for illegals, but there was language that would have allowed for an interpretation allowing it, and coupled with the fact that two amendments had been rejected to use the SAVE program to determine eligibility...one had to assume the intent was to provide coverage. The next day, Obama came out and said language would be put in denying benefits to illegals, and later they came out and said SAVE would be a part of the program.
It could be a great program, but knowing the way gov't works, mostly for those who pay for it, lobbyists, I don't expect much other than a huge financial black-hole to be pouring money we don't have into.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (8)
(8) ww77651
11:25AM Oct 9th 2009
If we could get rid of corruption, we could make it work But I am afraid that we are not capable of getting rid of corruption until the Lord returns and establishes his Divine government, where He is King, and his Saints carry out his commands.
RATE THIS COMMENT:
(0)
(0) Teresa
12:41PM Oct 9th 2009
If people would just stop over reacting to this health care bill they would see that all it does is allow people to get health insurance that do not have it right now. It does not change a single thing for those who have it right now. Period. IF you have insurance and you are happy with it nothing changes for you. if you do not have it, you will. That is all there is to it. It is funded by getting rid of wasteful spending in medicare that exists now. Have any of you who are against it even looked at the bill???
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-4)
(-4) donnal777
2:26PM Oct 9th 2009
The AMA report shows that the number ONE denier of health care claims is, surprise! MEDICARE! at a 6.85 % denial rate! The only insurance company even close to that is Aetna. Most of the others are around 2%
The myth that you can keep your current healthcare plan is just that because the government option will make it very expensive for employers to provide private insurance. People and employers will be taxed to death if they don't buy into the "public option". This will inevitably lead to a single-payer system, no matter how much Obama and his liberal cronies deny it! This is not about healthcare, it is about the government wanting complete control of our money and our lives!
The myth that you can keep your current healthcare plan is just that because the government option will make it very expensive for employers to provide private insurance. People and employers will be taxed to death if they don't buy into the "public option". This will inevitably lead to a single-payer system, no matter how much Obama and his liberal cronies deny it! This is not about healthcare, it is about the government wanting complete control of our money and our lives!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
(1) rthompson1329
2:40PM Oct 9th 2009
the bill isn't for public consumption. the memebers voting on the bill haven't read it !!!!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
(1) dfldee
1:14PM Oct 9th 2009
HUGE GOVERNMENT EXPANSION AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WASTED ON THE WRONG STUFF. WHY DONT YOU THINK THEY WANT YOU TO READ THEIR CRAP? IMPEACH ALL OF THEM!!!!! THEY GOT NO BUSINESS MEDDLING IN HEALTH CARE.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (5)
(5) rthompson1329
2:36PM Oct 9th 2009
sure why not start another health care program after all medicare is about broke. mis management waste fraud corruption
RATE THIS COMMENT:
(2)
(2) rthompson1329
2:52PM Oct 9th 2009
the new way this is all suppose to be paid for per pelosi is to pass a federal .05% TAX ON EVERYTHING... so in truth it is not in fact free. can you imagine what that is going to do to our already failing economy and the near worthless american dollar. lead the US right in the toilet. euro buck anyone
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
(2) heiraz
3:23PM Oct 9th 2009
I particularly like the idea (offered above by someone with, hold your breath, degrees in BOTH economics and business, what an accomplishment) that government involvement in health care reduces the nation's wealth. So radical capitalism holds that it is "good" for the nation if officers, boards of directors and shareholders of insurance companies gain "wealth" on the backs of the sick, because, really who else suffers economically from government run health care? And then the punch line: "So the main reason that health care is so expensive in this country is the fact that the government is already involved." Really give me a break- what nonsense- the reason(s) health care is so expensive are: 1) the high administrative and profit costs attendant to private health care (about 20 cents of every dollar spent vs. 6 cents for Medicare); 2) the ever increasing ability to treat disease using new and expensive technology; 3) the lack of evidence based studies to determine which treatments are actually effective, leaving physicians free to choose what suits them (angioplasty, an extremely expensive procedure, has been shown in a recent study to be worse than medical care alone in non-emergent coronary artery disease, but it has been the standard of care for years in even single vessel disease without a study ever showing a net benefit).
As far a wasting wealth through government spending how about a trillion dollar war of choice and a military budget of over 1/2 trillion dollars a year (not counting war spending) that can barely maintain an army of 140,000 in the field? When staking out priorities which is highest- the health of the citizens of the nation or a few hundred more joint strike aircraft? The republican answer is clear "not a penny for health care, never ask a question of pecuniary military demands". Something is very wrong with what passes for "thinking" among conservatives.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-6)
(-6) michem55
10:59AM Oct 10th 2009
Actually, I have several degrees in economics, sociology, accounting, and business ... a couple of them are masters, and I am not done yet, I still want more (I just like school, and yes I work full time, just I am always enrolled in a class or two per semester, work pays for them).
Fact: Any government subsidized program will increase the cost of what you are subsidizing.... take an economics course yourself? Then get out your old text book and look it up.
Neither the past republican plan (no regulation) nor the current democratic plans (take over the industry) are what are best for the economy as a whole.
For example, Clinton's (who was a moderate) Family medical leave act -- now that was a good idea. You REGULATE the business; force them to allow employees to be able to take leave .... but you don't take over the industry. That is what the government should do. If your goal is to help those on the lower socioeconomic scale, then the gov should significantly lower taxes on the lower wage earners. Federal taxes are progressive, but many state taxes are regressive. Unemployment, TDI, and other payroll taxes are phased out the more a person makes, which is very backwards.
I am also not saying that we should stop Medicare or Medicaid, just that they are a main cause for the increase in costs. (My father is an internist and I used to be in charge of billing Medicare and Medicaid in his office -- and YES they cause all sorts of problems and cause the price of health care to rise.) It is unfortunate that there are so many people (like yourself who deny that the government subsidy would cause the cost to rise) who have been mislead by journalists -- no doubt you read somewhere that the government can magically take over health care and the costs will not go up: well, what you read is false. I can do the economic proofs for you, but in the end you will believe what you want to believe. But don’t you think it is a good idea to make certain that the journalist you read has an actual degree in economics and isn't English major with excellent writing skills who doesn't even know the difference between micro and macro economics.
Or better yet, go buy a book and analyze the policies the politician is putting forth yourself.
Fact: Any government subsidized program will increase the cost of what you are subsidizing.... take an economics course yourself? Then get out your old text book and look it up.
Neither the past republican plan (no regulation) nor the current democratic plans (take over the industry) are what are best for the economy as a whole.
For example, Clinton's (who was a moderate) Family medical leave act -- now that was a good idea. You REGULATE the business; force them to allow employees to be able to take leave .... but you don't take over the industry. That is what the government should do. If your goal is to help those on the lower socioeconomic scale, then the gov should significantly lower taxes on the lower wage earners. Federal taxes are progressive, but many state taxes are regressive. Unemployment, TDI, and other payroll taxes are phased out the more a person makes, which is very backwards.
I am also not saying that we should stop Medicare or Medicaid, just that they are a main cause for the increase in costs. (My father is an internist and I used to be in charge of billing Medicare and Medicaid in his office -- and YES they cause all sorts of problems and cause the price of health care to rise.) It is unfortunate that there are so many people (like yourself who deny that the government subsidy would cause the cost to rise) who have been mislead by journalists -- no doubt you read somewhere that the government can magically take over health care and the costs will not go up: well, what you read is false. I can do the economic proofs for you, but in the end you will believe what you want to believe. But don’t you think it is a good idea to make certain that the journalist you read has an actual degree in economics and isn't English major with excellent writing skills who doesn't even know the difference between micro and macro economics.
Or better yet, go buy a book and analyze the policies the politician is putting forth yourself.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
(4) Martha
5:27PM Oct 9th 2009
The sad truth about health care is that it will never be possible, privately or publicly to have all Americans receive and enjoy the best possible care available for any given condition. We have come to believe that good health is a right and that we should not have to pay for it or participate in behaviors that protect it. We Americans want to eat our fast food, drink our sodas, have dessert, and then have the money tree pay for the latest in our cardiac and diabetic care. Well it doesn't work that way, and no amount of political doublespeak can make it true.
Here is the truth. If we level the playing field in health care via the private or public network, it will reduce the level of the majority of care, not increase it. Americans need to ask if that is what they want. Do we wish to have the individual responsible for his or her health, and have that care rendered at the best possible level affordable to him or her, or do we all want to chip in to allow for generalized lesser care for the greater good.
Here is the truth. If we level the playing field in health care via the private or public network, it will reduce the level of the majority of care, not increase it. Americans need to ask if that is what they want. Do we wish to have the individual responsible for his or her health, and have that care rendered at the best possible level affordable to him or her, or do we all want to chip in to allow for generalized lesser care for the greater good.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
(2) HardCoreRepublican
5:27PM Oct 9th 2009
michem55
11:17AM Oct 9th 2009
This first part of your post "We do not need Universal Health Care" is debatable, while the second part "It is too expensive" is very much true and also the elephant in the room that so many like to dismiss.
I know it has been said before, but I blame the media for this. I have degree(s) in economics + business, and I know many people out there misunderstand the economy because of the media. They don't realize what Obama and Pelosi, who has been destroying it since 2007, have done. Soooooo many journalist who never took an economics course (or failed the one that they took) write articles about the economy and how Bush, Pelosi, and Obama policies impact it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really?! Well, I have a Ph.D. in Economics and I can tell you that your 'economic salad' is nothing but self-serving partisan propaganda.
11:17AM Oct 9th 2009
This first part of your post "We do not need Universal Health Care" is debatable, while the second part "It is too expensive" is very much true and also the elephant in the room that so many like to dismiss.
I know it has been said before, but I blame the media for this. I have degree(s) in economics + business, and I know many people out there misunderstand the economy because of the media. They don't realize what Obama and Pelosi, who has been destroying it since 2007, have done. Soooooo many journalist who never took an economics course (or failed the one that they took) write articles about the economy and how Bush, Pelosi, and Obama policies impact it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really?! Well, I have a Ph.D. in Economics and I can tell you that your 'economic salad' is nothing but self-serving partisan propaganda.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-4)
(-4) michem55
1:49AM Oct 10th 2009
You said "Well, I have a Ph.D. in Economics and I can tell you that your 'economic salad' is nothing but self-serving partisan propaganda."
Exactly how is it partisan? Not regulating the economy (or health care in this instance) is something that the Republicans (who had significant control at the start of Bush's presidency) did not do. While the current administration wants to TAKE over part of the economy (the health industry). Both parties are at fault -- but the current danger is what the Democrats want to do in taking over this industry, which will make it less efficient and will hurt the economy and increase the national debt, and hurting the economy and the debt right now is a particularly bad idea.
They should only put in place regulations right now (like allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines) rather than what they are planning. Not to say sometime in the future we cannot swing health care for all, but not right now, not with the systems we have in place.
Your idea of the patient and the doctor finding the most economical course of action will not work unless there is some incentive for the patient to do so. Otherwise, they will (and do) push for the most expensive care, and the doctors comply with extra tests because of the fear of lawsuits. Since you claim to have a PhD in economics, you should know that insurance will cause the break down in the market (moral hazard, etc.) One way to overcome this would be to force all insurance companies to charge their patients a percent copay. The higher the price, the more they would pay. Flat co pays don't do that much to lower costs as it doesn't matter what price the doctor charges, the patient pays the same. The patient never wants the generic drug, unless they get to pay less for it. Another government oversight we need is for the doctors being forced to tell these patients how much they are going to have to pay BEFORE the tests are ordered ... that way the patient can decide if it is worth it to pay that much for all the tests. These steps would lower the cost of patient care and lower the overall cost of health care. I also really like the idea of allowing people to self-insure. Regulate the health care providers so that they may not charge different rates for different people, then set up an account that would act like a 401K. The money would be put in tax free out of your paycheck, and accumulate until you spend it on health care .... this works nicely as the longer you live, the more that would be there and people typically need more health care at the end of their lives.
I'll admit it might sound like I am partisan because I just really don't like Pelosi, my personal feeling is that she lies and is an idiot -- this doesn't have anything to do with economics, just my belief. But not all democrats are dangerous like she is, and neither are the republicans. We need middle of the road, moderate solutions -- solutions that people come to with their eyes open. Not the current method the people in Washington seem to use: just lie and tell the people what they want to hear and drive the debt sooooo high up that the dollar is no longer secure.
But anyway, what was your thesis?
Exactly how is it partisan? Not regulating the economy (or health care in this instance) is something that the Republicans (who had significant control at the start of Bush's presidency) did not do. While the current administration wants to TAKE over part of the economy (the health industry). Both parties are at fault -- but the current danger is what the Democrats want to do in taking over this industry, which will make it less efficient and will hurt the economy and increase the national debt, and hurting the economy and the debt right now is a particularly bad idea.
They should only put in place regulations right now (like allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines) rather than what they are planning. Not to say sometime in the future we cannot swing health care for all, but not right now, not with the systems we have in place.
Your idea of the patient and the doctor finding the most economical course of action will not work unless there is some incentive for the patient to do so. Otherwise, they will (and do) push for the most expensive care, and the doctors comply with extra tests because of the fear of lawsuits. Since you claim to have a PhD in economics, you should know that insurance will cause the break down in the market (moral hazard, etc.) One way to overcome this would be to force all insurance companies to charge their patients a percent copay. The higher the price, the more they would pay. Flat co pays don't do that much to lower costs as it doesn't matter what price the doctor charges, the patient pays the same. The patient never wants the generic drug, unless they get to pay less for it. Another government oversight we need is for the doctors being forced to tell these patients how much they are going to have to pay BEFORE the tests are ordered ... that way the patient can decide if it is worth it to pay that much for all the tests. These steps would lower the cost of patient care and lower the overall cost of health care. I also really like the idea of allowing people to self-insure. Regulate the health care providers so that they may not charge different rates for different people, then set up an account that would act like a 401K. The money would be put in tax free out of your paycheck, and accumulate until you spend it on health care .... this works nicely as the longer you live, the more that would be there and people typically need more health care at the end of their lives.
I'll admit it might sound like I am partisan because I just really don't like Pelosi, my personal feeling is that she lies and is an idiot -- this doesn't have anything to do with economics, just my belief. But not all democrats are dangerous like she is, and neither are the republicans. We need middle of the road, moderate solutions -- solutions that people come to with their eyes open. Not the current method the people in Washington seem to use: just lie and tell the people what they want to hear and drive the debt sooooo high up that the dollar is no longer secure.
But anyway, what was your thesis?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
(4) HardCoreRepublican
5:39PM Oct 9th 2009
The truth that no politician will ever tell you is that there will never be any way to cap health care expenses until we ALL understand, as patients, that we cannot always benefit from the very latest (and very costly) technology. Yes, some form of rationing has to take place. It would be best if patients work with their doctors to determine, in each case, the most economical course of action.
The other important factors specifically identified by the author are that the population is aging rapidly. As a result health care expenses are growing fast.
That is why some people have been advocating, for a very long time now, to simply push the age at which you can start receiving Medicare benefits beyond 65. Studies have been done that show that you can eliminate the impending Medicare crisis by simply pushing the age at which you can start receiving benefits by one month for every calendar year.
The other important factors specifically identified by the author are that the population is aging rapidly. As a result health care expenses are growing fast.
That is why some people have been advocating, for a very long time now, to simply push the age at which you can start receiving Medicare benefits beyond 65. Studies have been done that show that you can eliminate the impending Medicare crisis by simply pushing the age at which you can start receiving benefits by one month for every calendar year.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
(-3) Add your comments
Woman Up on Facebook
Now Commenting
- enumakundu on:
Transcript of News Conference by President Obama - james claypool on:
Americans Held in Haiti Plead for U.S. Government Help - Tom on:
Americans Held in Haiti Plead for U.S. Government Help - eugpenn123 on:
Murtha Turned Against War, but Not Grab-While-You-Can Politics - patriciaholy on:
Scott Brown and the Palin Path: Will He Choose Brassy or Boring? - bryan on:
Americans Held in Haiti Plead for U.S. Government Help
Submit Your Favorite Links
No.
Props
Props
Follow Politics Daily
Other News
- Surprise guest at White House briefing: Obama
- Pork is in the eye of the beholder
- Colbert takes on Palin's "hand-o-prompter"
- State Farm: we warned government on Toyota in 2007
- Rich Lowry's brain
- Robert Gibbs Pokes Fun at Sarah Palin
- World Likes Obama Much More Than Bush
- Obama Makes New Plea for Bipartisanship
- Sarah Palin Must Heed Yogi Berra
- Meg Whitman Is the Anti-Palin
- A Greek Economic Tragedy
- No Idol for Stern
- Iran on the Brink
- The Race Card and the Jackson Doctor
- What's Wrong With Skinny?
- Iran's Acts 'Not Acceptable'
- Boehner: Why Discuss Dead Bill?
- $50M for Paradise, But Try Getting There
- Clinton Hostage-Taker Now a Fugitive
- Kerrigan Father's Death Ruled a Homicide
Politics Daily More Links