When some progressives speak of a nationalized healthcare service or industry, they're accused of supporting "socialized medicine". Any nationalization of industry, whether the postal service, healthcare, or pension is considered to be "socialized". Progressives are accused of supporting "national socialism" and supporting a centralized government owning industries and forcing people what to do in a centralized command economy. How ought we to respond to this? Instead of having a nationalized healthcare service, would conservatives feel better if we had a universal healthcare insurance instead? I like the idea of a universal healthcare system because it's the best way to guarantee that everyone gets their right to adequate healthcare coverage. What's the best way to explain the difference between universal healthcare systems and universal healthcare insurance? How might we go about arguing that the former is better without being accused of supporting "socialized medicine" or at least having adequate resources for defending ourselves from such accusations?
Matthew
Full Version: Universal Healthcare vs. Insurance
From what I'm reading, single-payer health care is universal health insurance. The gripe from the far right is based on the presumed taking of money away from the wealthy to pay for something that doesn't put money back into their pockets and which benefits more people at the lower ends of society. It's an attitude that goes back centuries, to times when the wealthy considered themselves so by divine providence: if you were wealthy, it was because you had pleased the gods, and if you were unlucky enough to be born into poverty, then you must have done something wrong to earn it. Of course, such things as blind luck or ruthless ambition never factored in. It's only been if the last two or three centuries that more democratic principles have begun to set in, and the far right has fought these principles every step of the way because it means loss of power and wealth.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Jan 22 2009, 12:53 PM) 
From what I'm reading, single-payer health care is universal health insurance.
If this is the case, then hell yes!
Matthew
There are a number of institutions which are actually federally-owned, state-owned, or county-owned. The United States Post Office is a federally-owned institution. State prisions to be be state-owned institutions. Public schools and county libraries tend to be county-owned if I am not mistaken. All of these institutions are publically-funded as well. Yet I don't know of anyone who would call the Post Office a "socialized postal system" or the prison system as a "socialized prison system", the libraries as a "socialized library system" or the schools as a "socialized education system". If these institutions are not considered forms of socialism, then why would a universal healthcare system, be it insurance or otherwise, be considered a form of socialism? This is something I truly do not get. I can understand the concern about nationalizing industries, worrying that it can lead to a form of "national socialism" and that's not what I want. I just want people to get what they're reasonably entitled to.
Matthew
Matthew
I'm not sure if the institutions we have publicly owned are socialist or not, but I think the word has been abused by certain wealthy interests as a bogey man concept with which to scare lay voters into casting ballots against their own interests. Think tanks, generously funded by the far right, spent years perfecting the development and delivery of the rhetoric.
I think socialized... (I'll qualify this)... government run healthcare is a bad idea. Not only has our government bankrupted our social security, they have proven that they cannot effectively run the socialized healthcare already in place with the VA and Medicare. The service provided for our less fortunate citizens and veterans is atrocious! This coupled with the enormous amount of tax dollars it would take to initiate and fund such a program is repugnant.
I like the idea of Health Savings accounts, where the patient can save tax free and pay for incidental hospital visits and the like. The problem we have now is that people will meet their deductible, and then go crazy with frivolous "procedures" and doctor visits which drives up the cost of health care for everyone. I do believe in catastrophic health coverage (which is actually pretty affordable) and maybe some sort of insurance that protects you against disease such as cancer or some other variant. It would definitely bring the costs of health care coverage down if people actually paid for services rendered instead of meeting a deductible, then "spending" away.
Either way, there are more issues than what I just brought up, but overall, I am completely against a government run healthcare system.
I like the idea of Health Savings accounts, where the patient can save tax free and pay for incidental hospital visits and the like. The problem we have now is that people will meet their deductible, and then go crazy with frivolous "procedures" and doctor visits which drives up the cost of health care for everyone. I do believe in catastrophic health coverage (which is actually pretty affordable) and maybe some sort of insurance that protects you against disease such as cancer or some other variant. It would definitely bring the costs of health care coverage down if people actually paid for services rendered instead of meeting a deductible, then "spending" away.
Either way, there are more issues than what I just brought up, but overall, I am completely against a government run healthcare system.
Health savings accounts sound like the same kind of ponzi scheme floated by the shrub when he tried to get Social Security privatized. What's more, we already have private health insurance, and that has proven disastrous as only those who can afford health care get it — the rest of us must go without.
As I've stated, there is a difference between single-payer insurance and government-provided health care. Sara Robinson from Campaign for America's Future explains it far better than I can.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbu...lth-care-part-i
That's who she is: someone who's experienced both American and Canadian health care first hand.
There's much more, but I trust you get the idea. Ms. Robinson continues in the second part.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbu...free-marketeers
You mentioned about government health care being inefficient. This simply is not so.
As I've stated, there is a difference between single-payer insurance and government-provided health care. Sara Robinson from Campaign for America's Future explains it far better than I can.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbu...lth-care-part-i
QUOTE
I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.
That's who she is: someone who's experienced both American and Canadian health care first hand.
QUOTE
In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.
The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."
The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."
QUOTE
Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:
First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.
Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.
One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.
Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.
Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.
Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.
First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.
Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.
One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.
Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.
Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.
Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.
QUOTE
Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.
You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.
And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.
Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.
You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.
And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.
Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.
QUOTE
I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.
It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.
It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.
QUOTE
The province does charge a small monthly premium (ours is $108/month for a family of four) for the basic coverage. However, most people never even have to write that check: almost all employers pick up the tab for their employees' premiums as part of the standard benefits package; and the province covers it for people on public assistance or disability.
"The basics" covered by this plan include 100% of all doctor's fees, ambulance fares, tests, and everything that happens in a hospital -- in other words, the really big-ticket items that routinely drive American families into bankruptcy. In BC, it doesn't include "extras" like medical equipment, prescriptions, physical therapy or chiropractic care, dental, vision, and so on; and if you want a private or semi-private room with TV and phone, that costs extra (about what you'd pay for a room in a middling hotel). That other stuff does add up; but it's far easier to afford if you're not having to cover the big expenses, too. Furthermore: you can deduct any out-of-pocket health expenses you do have to pay off your income taxes. And, as every American knows by now, drugs aren't nearly as expensive here, either.
Filling the gap between the basics and the extras is the job of the country's remaining private health insurers. Since they're off the hook for the ruinously expensive big-ticket items that can put their own profits at risk, the insurance companies make a tidy business out of offering inexpensive policies that cover all those smaller, more predictable expenses. Top-quality add-on policies typically run in the ballpark of $75 per person in a family per month -- about $300 for a family of four -- if you're stuck buying an individual plan. Group plans are cheap enough that even small employers can afford to offer them as a routine benefit. An average working Canadian with employer-paid basic care and supplemental insurance gets free coverage equal to the best policies now only offered at a few of America's largest corporations. And that employer is probably only paying a couple hundred dollars a month to provide that benefit.
"The basics" covered by this plan include 100% of all doctor's fees, ambulance fares, tests, and everything that happens in a hospital -- in other words, the really big-ticket items that routinely drive American families into bankruptcy. In BC, it doesn't include "extras" like medical equipment, prescriptions, physical therapy or chiropractic care, dental, vision, and so on; and if you want a private or semi-private room with TV and phone, that costs extra (about what you'd pay for a room in a middling hotel). That other stuff does add up; but it's far easier to afford if you're not having to cover the big expenses, too. Furthermore: you can deduct any out-of-pocket health expenses you do have to pay off your income taxes. And, as every American knows by now, drugs aren't nearly as expensive here, either.
Filling the gap between the basics and the extras is the job of the country's remaining private health insurers. Since they're off the hook for the ruinously expensive big-ticket items that can put their own profits at risk, the insurance companies make a tidy business out of offering inexpensive policies that cover all those smaller, more predictable expenses. Top-quality add-on policies typically run in the ballpark of $75 per person in a family per month -- about $300 for a family of four -- if you're stuck buying an individual plan. Group plans are cheap enough that even small employers can afford to offer them as a routine benefit. An average working Canadian with employer-paid basic care and supplemental insurance gets free coverage equal to the best policies now only offered at a few of America's largest corporations. And that employer is probably only paying a couple hundred dollars a month to provide that benefit.
There's much more, but I trust you get the idea. Ms. Robinson continues in the second part.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbu...free-marketeers
You mentioned about government health care being inefficient. This simply is not so.
QUOTE
America spends about 15% of its GDP on health care. Most other industrialized countries (all of whom have some form of universal care) spend about 11-12%. According to the WHO, Canada spends a bit over 9% -- and most of the problems within their system come out of the fact that it's chronically underfunded compared to the international average.
Any system that has people spending more and getting less is, by definition, not efficient. And these efficiency leaks are, almost entirely, due to private greed. There is no logical way that a private system can pay eight-figure CEO compensation packages, turn a handsome a profit for shareholders, and still be "efficient." In fact, in order to deliver those profits and salaries, the American system has built up a vast, Kafkaesque administrative machinery of approval, denial, and fraud management, which inflates the US system's administrative costs to well over double that seen in other countries -- or even in our own public systems, including Medicare and the VA system.
Not incidentally: one of the benefits of single-payer health care is that it largely eliminates the entire issue of "fraud." You can only "cheat" a system that already views its primary business as rationing and withholding care. In Canada, where the system is set up to deliver health care instead of profits, and medical access is considered a right, this whole oversight machinery is far cheaper and more compact. In general, the system trusts doctors and patients to make the right choices the first time. As a result, people generally don't have to lie, cheat, and grovel to get the system to deliver the care they need. They just go and get it -- and walk out without a moment's dread about the bills.
Shareholder profit, inflated CEO salaries, and top-heavy administration -- all of which serve to work against the delivery of care, not facilitate it -- are anti-efficiencies that siphon off 20-25% of America's total health care spending. These are huge sums; yet it's mostly money down a gold-plated rathole. In the end, it doesn't provide a single bed, pay a single nurse or doctor, or treat a single patient.
Any system that has people spending more and getting less is, by definition, not efficient. And these efficiency leaks are, almost entirely, due to private greed. There is no logical way that a private system can pay eight-figure CEO compensation packages, turn a handsome a profit for shareholders, and still be "efficient." In fact, in order to deliver those profits and salaries, the American system has built up a vast, Kafkaesque administrative machinery of approval, denial, and fraud management, which inflates the US system's administrative costs to well over double that seen in other countries -- or even in our own public systems, including Medicare and the VA system.
Not incidentally: one of the benefits of single-payer health care is that it largely eliminates the entire issue of "fraud." You can only "cheat" a system that already views its primary business as rationing and withholding care. In Canada, where the system is set up to deliver health care instead of profits, and medical access is considered a right, this whole oversight machinery is far cheaper and more compact. In general, the system trusts doctors and patients to make the right choices the first time. As a result, people generally don't have to lie, cheat, and grovel to get the system to deliver the care they need. They just go and get it -- and walk out without a moment's dread about the bills.
Shareholder profit, inflated CEO salaries, and top-heavy administration -- all of which serve to work against the delivery of care, not facilitate it -- are anti-efficiencies that siphon off 20-25% of America's total health care spending. These are huge sums; yet it's mostly money down a gold-plated rathole. In the end, it doesn't provide a single bed, pay a single nurse or doctor, or treat a single patient.
Mike: Health savings accounts sound like the same kind of ponzi scheme floated by the shrub when he tried to get Social Security privatized.
JT: Please explain to me how you consider privatized social security as a "ponzi scheme."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike: What's more, we already have private health insurance, and that has proven disastrous as only those who can afford health care get it — the rest of us must go without.
JT: That's why I also favor catastrophic and other types of supplemental insurance that is more affordable...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read the ourfuture blog and will address some of those topics later... However, here are a few thoughts on government run healthcare and why I chose not to go down this road if avoidable....
Here's some more evidence against government run healthcare systems...
#1 We can't afford it
The estimated deficit in Medicare as of fiscal 2008 is approximately $70T, yes, trillion! And that doesn't include all of our citizens! Imagine the unfunded commitments for every man, women, child, and illegal immigrant!
See the Congressional testimony of Prof. Kent Smetters.
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/he...stmnt021705.pdf
"This $65 trillion imbalance is about $20 trillion more than the value of all U.S. corporations,
homes, and land in the United States. This imbalance could, in theory, be eliminated by increasing uncapped (HI) payroll taxes immediately and permanently by an additional 22.4 percentage points, thereby more than doubling the current employer and employee combined payroll tax of 15.4 percent. Of course, such a policy would first send the U.S. economy into a tailspin and collect little revenue. Instead, the growth of entitlement spending must be controlled in order to avoid economic collapse."
"Why do we face such a large shortfalls today? The answer is very straightforward: The current federal budget framework encourages policymakers to over-commit to future entitlement spending because the true long-term costs are not properly tracked in the budget. The standard five-year or 10-year projection window, in particular, substantially underestimates the costs of entitlement programs."
Later it states...
"For example, before Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) was passed by Congress toward the end of 2003, it was scored as having a 10-year cost of $400 billion between 2004 and 2013. Controversy erupted when it was learned, after the bill was signed into law, that the cost would be closer to $535 over this same time period. Today, the cost of Part D is estimated to equal $724 billion over the 10-year period between 2006 and 2015, assuming that the cost savings assumed in the score actually materializes. Virtually all of the increase in cost of Medicare Part D, from $535B to $724B, comes from simply shifting the 10-year window to include 2014 and 2015."
"In their annual reports, the Social Security and Medicare Trustees have traditionally focused on
the “actuarial deficit” that includes the present value of the program’s shortfall over the subsequent 75 years. While 75 years might seem like a long projection window, it is also inadequate:
“Doing the calculations for a 75-year horizon understates the deficiencies, because the 75-year actuarial calculations omit the large deficits that continue to occur beyond the 75th year. The understatement is significant, even though values in the distant future are discounted by a large amount.” (President’s 2006 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 217)"
#2 Congress Changes the rules...
Dr. Manion, formerly Dean of the Law School at Notre Dame states that:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/th...l-security-tax/
"The promoters Of the great social security deception never advertised it to the people as a slick, easily collectible form of constantly increasing taxation, Nevertheless, when the original Federal Social Security Act was passed upon by the United States Supreme Court in 1937, it was validated by that Court merely as an exercise of the Constitutional taxing power of Congress for the benefit of the general fund of the United States Treasury. In substance, the Supreme Court held that if and when the government needs money, Congress can tax payments and earnings of employers and employees in the same way that it can tax a bottle of whiskey or a ticket to the ball game.
Having thus raised the money, the Supreme Court said that Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country. The Court held that Congress has no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments.*
* U.S. vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1; Stewart Machine Company vs. Davis, 301 U.S, 548; Helvering vs. Davis, 301 U.S. 619.
All federal taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, gasoline taxes, and social security taxes, go indiscriminately into the same general fund of the federal treasury. From that general fund, Congress makes periodic appropriations for all the purposes of the federal government, including payments for social security benefits."
JT: This goes for our potential socialized healthcare system. There is no law that our government has to earmark these funds for healthcare purposes. And as evidenced by history, our government has and will take money they want and use it for other projects...
#3 Not all people on the system like it...
You choose to use anecdotal evidence... Here are a few good stories on how we treat our own people on the government system, and those that have universal healthcare....
VA Walter Reed, even the liberals were up in arms over this....
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)
March 11, 2007
By Associated Press
WASHINGTON — An Arizona congressman said Saturday that mold-covered walls, rodent infestations and other problems uncovered recently at Walter Reed Army Medical Center reveal "a catastrophic failure of leadership" by the Bush administration. Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., said in the Democrats' weekly radio address that Congress is acting quickly to hold the administration accountable for underfunding and mismanaging the veterans health care system.
"This is no way to treat our troops, no way to treat our veterans, and Democrats are taking action," Mitchell said.
Mitchell's comments come after a week of congressional hearings on reports of shoddy outpatient health care at Walter Reed, one of the nation's premier facilities for treating veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Current and former officials and patients at the hearings told of neglect, bureaucratic delays and other problems at veterans hospitals and clinics across the country.
"Sadly, what is happening at Walter Reed is not an exception to the way this administration has treated our troops," said Mitchell, who chaired one of the hearings. "What we now know is that the situation at Walter Reed cannot simply be fixed with drywall and paint. The problems at Walter Reed were not just about run-down buildings — the problem was a catastrophic failure of leadership."
Army and administration officials have said they are working to fix the problems at Walter Reed. Caseworkers, financial specialists and others have been added to work with injured soldiers' families.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates forced Army Secretary Francis Harvey to resign. Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who was in charge of Walter Reed since August 2006, also was ousted from his post.
A bipartisan commission appointed by President Bush is reviewing the military and veterans health care systems, as are the Pentagon, the Army and the Veterans Affairs Department.
Mitchell said the Bush administration has tried to care for veterans "on the cheap." ---- Isn't this how our government runs in the first place, getting contracts from the lowest bidder?
Democrats have provided about $3.5 billion above the president's budget request in the emergency war funding bill, which House members will vote on soon, to deal with the health care problems faced by veterans, he said.
"I think one of the best things Congress can do is find government waste and weed it out. But it's not right to hurt veterans when they so desperately need our care," Mitchell said.
JT: I guess the Brits aren't too happy with their version either...
From: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Britis...how/2497318.cms
"In the first major survey of medical tourism, figures show that British citizens have traveled to 112 hospitals in 48 countries for safe, quick and affordable treatment. NHS hospitals in Britain face long waiting lists and hygiene challenged by superbugs."
Also, from David Brindle, "NHS Waiting List Nears Record 1.3m," The Guardian, February 20,1998, p. 5.
Over 1.3 million patients in England alone are on waiting lists for medical care. 10 The new Labor government, elected in 1997, promised to tackle the problem; instead, a year, there were 100,000 more patients on waiting lists. The Independent Health Association of Britain estimates that, in addition to the 1.3 million on waiting lists, there are 465,000 British citizens waiting just to get onto the waiting lists.
JT: Here's Canada's problems...
From:
Richard F. Davies, MD, Ph.D., Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1999, 160:146970
The Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa, concluded that "Canadian patients are being forced to wait much longer than is really necessary" for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). He cited figures collected by the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario for the period April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997. During this time, 1,514 patients were on the provincial waiting list at any given time. More significantly, 71 patients died while waiting for CABG. In addition, 121 were taken off the list permanently because they had become "medically unfit for surgery" due to their extended waiting time, 211 were removed temporarily, 259 came off for unspecified reasons, and 44 left voluntarily to be treated elsewhere.
JT: Now I'm not saying that our current healthcare system is perfect, but I don't agree in letting our government run it!
JT: Please explain to me how you consider privatized social security as a "ponzi scheme."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike: What's more, we already have private health insurance, and that has proven disastrous as only those who can afford health care get it — the rest of us must go without.
JT: That's why I also favor catastrophic and other types of supplemental insurance that is more affordable...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read the ourfuture blog and will address some of those topics later... However, here are a few thoughts on government run healthcare and why I chose not to go down this road if avoidable....
Here's some more evidence against government run healthcare systems...
#1 We can't afford it
The estimated deficit in Medicare as of fiscal 2008 is approximately $70T, yes, trillion! And that doesn't include all of our citizens! Imagine the unfunded commitments for every man, women, child, and illegal immigrant!
See the Congressional testimony of Prof. Kent Smetters.
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/he...stmnt021705.pdf
"This $65 trillion imbalance is about $20 trillion more than the value of all U.S. corporations,
homes, and land in the United States. This imbalance could, in theory, be eliminated by increasing uncapped (HI) payroll taxes immediately and permanently by an additional 22.4 percentage points, thereby more than doubling the current employer and employee combined payroll tax of 15.4 percent. Of course, such a policy would first send the U.S. economy into a tailspin and collect little revenue. Instead, the growth of entitlement spending must be controlled in order to avoid economic collapse."
"Why do we face such a large shortfalls today? The answer is very straightforward: The current federal budget framework encourages policymakers to over-commit to future entitlement spending because the true long-term costs are not properly tracked in the budget. The standard five-year or 10-year projection window, in particular, substantially underestimates the costs of entitlement programs."
Later it states...
"For example, before Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) was passed by Congress toward the end of 2003, it was scored as having a 10-year cost of $400 billion between 2004 and 2013. Controversy erupted when it was learned, after the bill was signed into law, that the cost would be closer to $535 over this same time period. Today, the cost of Part D is estimated to equal $724 billion over the 10-year period between 2006 and 2015, assuming that the cost savings assumed in the score actually materializes. Virtually all of the increase in cost of Medicare Part D, from $535B to $724B, comes from simply shifting the 10-year window to include 2014 and 2015."
"In their annual reports, the Social Security and Medicare Trustees have traditionally focused on
the “actuarial deficit” that includes the present value of the program’s shortfall over the subsequent 75 years. While 75 years might seem like a long projection window, it is also inadequate:
“Doing the calculations for a 75-year horizon understates the deficiencies, because the 75-year actuarial calculations omit the large deficits that continue to occur beyond the 75th year. The understatement is significant, even though values in the distant future are discounted by a large amount.” (President’s 2006 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 217)"
#2 Congress Changes the rules...
Dr. Manion, formerly Dean of the Law School at Notre Dame states that:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/th...l-security-tax/
"The promoters Of the great social security deception never advertised it to the people as a slick, easily collectible form of constantly increasing taxation, Nevertheless, when the original Federal Social Security Act was passed upon by the United States Supreme Court in 1937, it was validated by that Court merely as an exercise of the Constitutional taxing power of Congress for the benefit of the general fund of the United States Treasury. In substance, the Supreme Court held that if and when the government needs money, Congress can tax payments and earnings of employers and employees in the same way that it can tax a bottle of whiskey or a ticket to the ball game.
Having thus raised the money, the Supreme Court said that Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country. The Court held that Congress has no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments.*
* U.S. vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1; Stewart Machine Company vs. Davis, 301 U.S, 548; Helvering vs. Davis, 301 U.S. 619.
All federal taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, gasoline taxes, and social security taxes, go indiscriminately into the same general fund of the federal treasury. From that general fund, Congress makes periodic appropriations for all the purposes of the federal government, including payments for social security benefits."
JT: This goes for our potential socialized healthcare system. There is no law that our government has to earmark these funds for healthcare purposes. And as evidenced by history, our government has and will take money they want and use it for other projects...
#3 Not all people on the system like it...
You choose to use anecdotal evidence... Here are a few good stories on how we treat our own people on the government system, and those that have universal healthcare....
VA Walter Reed, even the liberals were up in arms over this....
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)
March 11, 2007
By Associated Press
WASHINGTON — An Arizona congressman said Saturday that mold-covered walls, rodent infestations and other problems uncovered recently at Walter Reed Army Medical Center reveal "a catastrophic failure of leadership" by the Bush administration. Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., said in the Democrats' weekly radio address that Congress is acting quickly to hold the administration accountable for underfunding and mismanaging the veterans health care system.
"This is no way to treat our troops, no way to treat our veterans, and Democrats are taking action," Mitchell said.
Mitchell's comments come after a week of congressional hearings on reports of shoddy outpatient health care at Walter Reed, one of the nation's premier facilities for treating veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Current and former officials and patients at the hearings told of neglect, bureaucratic delays and other problems at veterans hospitals and clinics across the country.
"Sadly, what is happening at Walter Reed is not an exception to the way this administration has treated our troops," said Mitchell, who chaired one of the hearings. "What we now know is that the situation at Walter Reed cannot simply be fixed with drywall and paint. The problems at Walter Reed were not just about run-down buildings — the problem was a catastrophic failure of leadership."
Army and administration officials have said they are working to fix the problems at Walter Reed. Caseworkers, financial specialists and others have been added to work with injured soldiers' families.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates forced Army Secretary Francis Harvey to resign. Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who was in charge of Walter Reed since August 2006, also was ousted from his post.
A bipartisan commission appointed by President Bush is reviewing the military and veterans health care systems, as are the Pentagon, the Army and the Veterans Affairs Department.
Mitchell said the Bush administration has tried to care for veterans "on the cheap." ---- Isn't this how our government runs in the first place, getting contracts from the lowest bidder?
Democrats have provided about $3.5 billion above the president's budget request in the emergency war funding bill, which House members will vote on soon, to deal with the health care problems faced by veterans, he said.
"I think one of the best things Congress can do is find government waste and weed it out. But it's not right to hurt veterans when they so desperately need our care," Mitchell said.
JT: I guess the Brits aren't too happy with their version either...
From: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Britis...how/2497318.cms
"In the first major survey of medical tourism, figures show that British citizens have traveled to 112 hospitals in 48 countries for safe, quick and affordable treatment. NHS hospitals in Britain face long waiting lists and hygiene challenged by superbugs."
Also, from David Brindle, "NHS Waiting List Nears Record 1.3m," The Guardian, February 20,1998, p. 5.
Over 1.3 million patients in England alone are on waiting lists for medical care. 10 The new Labor government, elected in 1997, promised to tackle the problem; instead, a year, there were 100,000 more patients on waiting lists. The Independent Health Association of Britain estimates that, in addition to the 1.3 million on waiting lists, there are 465,000 British citizens waiting just to get onto the waiting lists.
JT: Here's Canada's problems...
From:
Richard F. Davies, MD, Ph.D., Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1999, 160:146970
The Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa, concluded that "Canadian patients are being forced to wait much longer than is really necessary" for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). He cited figures collected by the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario for the period April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997. During this time, 1,514 patients were on the provincial waiting list at any given time. More significantly, 71 patients died while waiting for CABG. In addition, 121 were taken off the list permanently because they had become "medically unfit for surgery" due to their extended waiting time, 211 were removed temporarily, 259 came off for unspecified reasons, and 44 left voluntarily to be treated elsewhere.
JT: Now I'm not saying that our current healthcare system is perfect, but I don't agree in letting our government run it!
QUOTE (Matthew @ Jan 22 2009, 11:12 PM)
There are a number of institutions which are actually federally-owned, state-owned, or county-owned. The United States Post Office is a federally-owned institution. State prisions to be be state-owned institutions. Public schools and county libraries tend to be county-owned if I am not mistaken. All of these institutions are publically-funded as well. Yet I don't know of anyone who would call the Post Office a "socialized postal system" or the prison system as a "socialized prison system", the libraries as a "socialized library system" or the schools as a "socialized education system". If these institutions are not considered forms of socialism, then why would a universal healthcare system, be it insurance or otherwise, be considered a form of socialism? This is something I truly do not get. I can understand the concern about nationalizing industries, worrying that it can lead to a form of "national socialism" and that's not what I want. I just want people to get what they're reasonably entitled to.
Matthew
Matthew
You're right, I wouldn't call those "socialized post offices, socialized prisons" I call them on the brink of failing! Post Office is going bankrupt, prisons are a mess, and let's not get started with Fannie and Freddie!
QUOTE
JT: Please explain to me how you consider privatized social security as a "ponzi scheme."
It's because what you're being asked to do is give your guaranteed Social Security income to Wall Street financiers who then gamble with it on the stock market — just as they did with mortgages and other debts. When they end up losing it all (house inevitably always wins in gambling, remember), we end up liable for the losses.
QUOTE
JT: That's why I also favor catastrophic and other types of supplemental insurance that is more affordable...
And who provides this insurance? If it's the private market, it's doomed to fail because it has failed thus far to deliver adequate health coverage. Corporations approach everything from the profit perspective; if there's none to be had in providing service, then that service is not provided. Public institutions, however, have the benefit of not being motivated by profit and can be held accountable for abuses in ways private enterprises can't.
QUOTE
WASHINGTON — An Arizona congressman said Saturday that mold-covered walls, rodent infestations and other problems uncovered recently at Walter Reed Army Medical Center reveal "a catastrophic failure of leadership" by the Bush administration. Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., said in the Democrats' weekly radio address that Congress is acting quickly to hold the administration accountable for underfunding and mismanaging the veterans health care system.
Remember what was running the government then: an abhorrent group of violent criminals the philosophy of which is that government can't (and shouldn't) do anything for anyone except the very rich. This philosophy was made all-too-evident before and after the following disasters: 9/11, the blackout of 2003, Hurricane Katrina, and at the VA. When government is run by people who actually believe in making it work, it does very well.
http://www.publicvalues.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0023
This is actually a Canadian web site, but the same principles apply here in America.
QUOTE
6:30 a.m. You are awakened by your clock radio and listen for a few minutes to the news before getting up. But you can listen to your favourite station only because the Canadian Radio Television Commission (CRTC) brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system. It ensures, for example, that radio stations do not overlap and that stations signals are not interfered with by the numerous other devices — cell phones, satellite television, wireless computers, etc. — whose signals crowd our nation's airwaves.
6:38 a.m. You go into the kitchen for breakfast. You pour some water into your coffeemaker. You simply take for granted that this water is safe to drink. But in fact you count on your city water department to constantly monitor the quality of your water and to immediately take measures to correct any potential problems with this vital resource. In Ontario in the 1990s, the Conservative government tried a privatized approach to water safety that proved disastrous.
6:39 a.m. You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why? Because when your house was being built, the electrical system had to be inspected to make sure it was properly installed — a service provided by your local government. And it was installed by an electrician who was trained and licensed by the province to ensure his/her competence and your safety.
6:45 a.m. You sit down to breakfast with your family. You are having eggs — a food that brings with it the possibility of salmonella poisoning, a serious food-borne illness affecting thousands of Canadians every year. But the chance of you getting sick from these eggs has now been greatly reduced by strict provincial regulations affecting egg producers and regular inspections.
7:00 a.m. You go into your newly renovated bathroom. You use the toilet and flush it. Your municipal government, usually with provincial and sometimes with federal financial help, then takes care of transporting this waste, treating it, and disposing of it in an environmentally responsible manner — all without a second thought by you.
7:20 a.m. As you are getting dressed, a glance outside the window shows some ominous clouds. You check Environment Canada. Every day, on your behalf, it takes in thousands of weather observations from surface stations, ships, aircraft, buoys, balloons, and satellites and puts out word through websites and news reports — all just to help you plan what to wear and make sure you don't get stuck in a snow storm. This government agency alone may be responsible for saving thousands of lives every year.
7:30 a.m. Before you leave home, you take your pills to control your high blood pressure. But how do you know that this medicine is safe or effective? Without the testing required by Health Canada, you wouldn't. And without the vigilance of Health Canada, you could easily fall victim to unscrupulous marketers of unsafe and worthless medicines.
7:45 a.m. You put a couple of letters in your mailbox. For less than the price of a cup of coffee, a Canada Post employee will come to your house, pick up the letters, and have them delivered in a few days to someone on the other side of the country.
6:38 a.m. You go into the kitchen for breakfast. You pour some water into your coffeemaker. You simply take for granted that this water is safe to drink. But in fact you count on your city water department to constantly monitor the quality of your water and to immediately take measures to correct any potential problems with this vital resource. In Ontario in the 1990s, the Conservative government tried a privatized approach to water safety that proved disastrous.
6:39 a.m. You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why? Because when your house was being built, the electrical system had to be inspected to make sure it was properly installed — a service provided by your local government. And it was installed by an electrician who was trained and licensed by the province to ensure his/her competence and your safety.
6:45 a.m. You sit down to breakfast with your family. You are having eggs — a food that brings with it the possibility of salmonella poisoning, a serious food-borne illness affecting thousands of Canadians every year. But the chance of you getting sick from these eggs has now been greatly reduced by strict provincial regulations affecting egg producers and regular inspections.
7:00 a.m. You go into your newly renovated bathroom. You use the toilet and flush it. Your municipal government, usually with provincial and sometimes with federal financial help, then takes care of transporting this waste, treating it, and disposing of it in an environmentally responsible manner — all without a second thought by you.
7:20 a.m. As you are getting dressed, a glance outside the window shows some ominous clouds. You check Environment Canada. Every day, on your behalf, it takes in thousands of weather observations from surface stations, ships, aircraft, buoys, balloons, and satellites and puts out word through websites and news reports — all just to help you plan what to wear and make sure you don't get stuck in a snow storm. This government agency alone may be responsible for saving thousands of lives every year.
7:30 a.m. Before you leave home, you take your pills to control your high blood pressure. But how do you know that this medicine is safe or effective? Without the testing required by Health Canada, you wouldn't. And without the vigilance of Health Canada, you could easily fall victim to unscrupulous marketers of unsafe and worthless medicines.
7:45 a.m. You put a couple of letters in your mailbox. For less than the price of a cup of coffee, a Canada Post employee will come to your house, pick up the letters, and have them delivered in a few days to someone on the other side of the country.
And, of course, there are lessons to learn from when those who run government fail to use it as it was designed to be used, namely, as a tool for the public good. Paul Krugman wrote in an open letter to Obama:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...a_must_do/print
QUOTE
to pull the economy out of its slide, you need to go beyond funneling money to banks and other financial institutions. You need to give the real economy of work and wages a boost. In other words, you have to get job creation right — which FDR never did.
This may sound like a strange thing to say. After all, what we remember from the 1930s is the Works Progress Administration, which at its peak employed millions of Americans building roads, schools and dams. But the New Deal's job-creation programs, while they certainly helped, were neither big enough nor sustained enough to end the Great Depression. When the economy is deeply depressed, you have to put normal concerns about budget deficits aside; FDR never managed to do that. As a result, he was too cautious: The boost he gave the economy between 1933 and 1936 was enough to get unemployment down, but not back to pre-Depression levels. And in 1937 he let the deficit worriers get to him: Even though the economy was still weak, he let himself be talked into slashing spending while raising taxes. This led to a severe recession that undid much of the progress the economy had made to that point. It took the giant public works project known as World War II — a project that finally silenced the penny pinchers — to bring the Depression to an end.
This may sound like a strange thing to say. After all, what we remember from the 1930s is the Works Progress Administration, which at its peak employed millions of Americans building roads, schools and dams. But the New Deal's job-creation programs, while they certainly helped, were neither big enough nor sustained enough to end the Great Depression. When the economy is deeply depressed, you have to put normal concerns about budget deficits aside; FDR never managed to do that. As a result, he was too cautious: The boost he gave the economy between 1933 and 1936 was enough to get unemployment down, but not back to pre-Depression levels. And in 1937 he let the deficit worriers get to him: Even though the economy was still weak, he let himself be talked into slashing spending while raising taxes. This led to a severe recession that undid much of the progress the economy had made to that point. It took the giant public works project known as World War II — a project that finally silenced the penny pinchers — to bring the Depression to an end.
What happened is that Roosevelt started heeding those who cautioned against doing "too much," and as a result didn't do enough. But even when Roosevelt was foolishly trying to slow down, hid programs were known for their resistance to corruption.
QUOTE
the New Deal made almost a fetish out of policing its own programs against potential corruption. In particular, F.D.R. created a powerful "division of progress investigation" to look into complaints of malfeasance in the W.P.A. That division proved so effective that a later Congressional investigation couldn't find a single serious irregularity it had missed.
This commitment to honest government wasn't a sign of Roosevelt's personal virtue; it reflected a political imperative. F.D.R.'s mission in office was to show that government activism works. To maintain that mission's credibility, he needed to keep his administration's record clean.
This commitment to honest government wasn't a sign of Roosevelt's personal virtue; it reflected a political imperative. F.D.R.'s mission in office was to show that government activism works. To maintain that mission's credibility, he needed to keep his administration's record clean.
As for the Canadian health care system, bear in mind that — as Ms. Robinson freely admits — the system does depend on the province in which it is based. I did some checking on your source, and found the following:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/...e/index-eng.php
Canada has been taking steps in the ten years since Dr. Davies' article to reduce wait times. But even then, Canada is still better in reducing overall wait times than is the U.S.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burg...g-_b_55749.html
QUOTE
What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" and people "initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable?"
If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States.
...
Speaking to the Aetna Investor's Conference 2007, Troy Brennan let these nuggets drop:
* The U.S. "healthcare system is not timely."
* Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement document "that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to see a provider."
* "In many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable."
* In his former stint as an administrator and head of a physicians' organization he spent much of his time trying "to find appointments for people with doctors."
...
Business Week, no great fan of a national healthcare system, reported in late June that "as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the U.S. are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations -- despite the fact that the U.S. spends considerably more per capita on health care than any other country."
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada.
But, there's something else you probably don't hear about Canada. Substantial progress is being made.
Most of the wait times problems derive from funding cuts by conservative national or provincial governments, or from the siphoning off of resources by private providers. But precisely because the Canadian system is publicly administered, Canadians are able to force their elected officials to fix problems, or get voted out of office.
Throughout Canada, there are multiple pilot programs that have succeeded in slashing wait times. "a new approach of targeting investments to reduce waiting times combined with transparent reporting of wait times is having a substantial impact on access in the Canadian system," wrote Robert Bell, MD, of Toronto's University Health Network, with several of his RN and physician colleagues in a letter to the Wall Street Journal Monday.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks -- that's less time than Aetna's chief medical officer says Americans typically wait after being diagnosed with cancer.
Canada also has no waits for emergency surgeries. It also doesn't have 44 million people who are uninsured because everyone has a national healthcare card guaranteeing health care from any doctor or hospital they choose. And it doesn't burden those with insurance with rising deductibles or co-pays.
If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States.
...
Speaking to the Aetna Investor's Conference 2007, Troy Brennan let these nuggets drop:
* The U.S. "healthcare system is not timely."
* Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement document "that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to see a provider."
* "In many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable."
* In his former stint as an administrator and head of a physicians' organization he spent much of his time trying "to find appointments for people with doctors."
...
Business Week, no great fan of a national healthcare system, reported in late June that "as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the U.S. are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations -- despite the fact that the U.S. spends considerably more per capita on health care than any other country."
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada.
But, there's something else you probably don't hear about Canada. Substantial progress is being made.
Most of the wait times problems derive from funding cuts by conservative national or provincial governments, or from the siphoning off of resources by private providers. But precisely because the Canadian system is publicly administered, Canadians are able to force their elected officials to fix problems, or get voted out of office.
Throughout Canada, there are multiple pilot programs that have succeeded in slashing wait times. "a new approach of targeting investments to reduce waiting times combined with transparent reporting of wait times is having a substantial impact on access in the Canadian system," wrote Robert Bell, MD, of Toronto's University Health Network, with several of his RN and physician colleagues in a letter to the Wall Street Journal Monday.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks -- that's less time than Aetna's chief medical officer says Americans typically wait after being diagnosed with cancer.
Canada also has no waits for emergency surgeries. It also doesn't have 44 million people who are uninsured because everyone has a national healthcare card guaranteeing health care from any doctor or hospital they choose. And it doesn't burden those with insurance with rising deductibles or co-pays.
And that's not all, according to a Los Angeles Times article published earlier this month.
QUOTE
Britain and Canada control costs in a very specific fashion: The government sets a budget for how much will be spent on healthcare that year, and the system figures out how to spend that much and no more. One of the ways the British and Canadians save money is to punt elective surgeries to a lower priority level. A 2001 survey by the policy journal "Health Affairs" found that 38% of Britons and 27% of Canadians reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery. Among Americans, that number was only 5%. Score one of us!
Well, sort of. American healthcare controls costs in another way. Rather than deciding as a society how much will be spent in the coming year and then figuring out how best to spend it, we abdicate collective responsibility and let individuals fend for themselves. So although Britain and Canada have decided that no one will go without, even if some must occasionally wait, the U.S. has decided that most of those who can't afford care simply won't get it.
When that very same survey also looked at cost problems among residents of different countries, 24% of Americans reported that they did not get medical care because of cost. Twenty-six percent said they didn't fill a prescription. And 22% said they didn't get a test or treatment. Those latter numbers are probably artificially small: If you can't afford to see a doctor, you never know that you can't afford the treatment she would recommend. In Britain and Canada, only about 6% of respondents reported that costs had limited their access to care.
Moreover, surveys conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have found that most countries don't have waiting lines or the uninsured. Not Germany or France or Japan or Sweden, all of which have more of a mix of public and private options. But Canada is next door, and Britain speaks our language, so we tend to spend a lot of time comparing our system with these systems and not a lot of time thinking through the full range of options.
Well, sort of. American healthcare controls costs in another way. Rather than deciding as a society how much will be spent in the coming year and then figuring out how best to spend it, we abdicate collective responsibility and let individuals fend for themselves. So although Britain and Canada have decided that no one will go without, even if some must occasionally wait, the U.S. has decided that most of those who can't afford care simply won't get it.
When that very same survey also looked at cost problems among residents of different countries, 24% of Americans reported that they did not get medical care because of cost. Twenty-six percent said they didn't fill a prescription. And 22% said they didn't get a test or treatment. Those latter numbers are probably artificially small: If you can't afford to see a doctor, you never know that you can't afford the treatment she would recommend. In Britain and Canada, only about 6% of respondents reported that costs had limited their access to care.
Moreover, surveys conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have found that most countries don't have waiting lines or the uninsured. Not Germany or France or Japan or Sweden, all of which have more of a mix of public and private options. But Canada is next door, and Britain speaks our language, so we tend to spend a lot of time comparing our system with these systems and not a lot of time thinking through the full range of options.
QUOTE
JT:Please explain to me how you consider privatized social security as a "ponzi scheme."
QUOTE
Mike: It's because what you're being asked to do is give your guaranteed Social Security income to Wall Street financiers who then gamble with it on the stock market — just as they did with mortgages and other debts. When they end up losing it all (house inevitably always wins in gambling, remember), we end up liable for the losses.
Actually that does not fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. Privatized retirement as Bush lined out was to take up to four percent of taxable wages, up to a maximum of $1000, that could be diverted from FICA and voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment. Therefore, the individual could do with it what they like. They could "gamble" as you say, or stick it under a mattress if they choose. This is not a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is more akin to what the government under both republican and deomcratic congresses have done over the years. They've taken money from the fund to fund other projects, and in essence, stolen from the fund. As I pointed out above, the Supreme Court has backed such behavior and the same can still happen if we chose to socialize healthcare.
Also, our Social Security is not "guaranteed." Congress has and can change our social security benefits as it pleases. And as you can imagine, the fund is empty and we don't have enough workers in the workforce to replenish it.... It's only a matter of time... And to think people would back a "government run" healthcare system? How and who's going to pay for it?
I'll address your other topics sometime this week. I'm heading to Washington to attend a Capital Markets Conference so maybe I can get a picture with our new Commander in Chief!
QUOTE
Actually that does not fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. Privatized retirement as Bush lined out was to take up to four percent of taxable wages, up to a maximum of $1000, that could be diverted from FICA and voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment.
Wikipedia describes ponzi schemes thus:
QUOTE
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually offers returns that other investments cannot guarantee in order to entice new investors, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.
The SEC has its own definition:
QUOTE
Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. Ponzi thought he could take advantage of differences between U.S. and foreign currencies used to buy and sell international mail coupons. Ponzi told investors that he could provide a 40% return in just 90 days compared with 5% for bank savings accounts. Ponzi was deluged with funds from investors, taking in $1 million during one three-hour period—and this was 1921! Though a few early investors were paid off to make the scheme look legitimate, an investigation found that Ponzi had only purchased about $30 worth of the international mail coupons.
Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.
Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.
That is precisely what taking money from Social Security, which guarantees the payouts to retirees, and giving it to Wall Street gamblers does. It promises something in return for your retirement money, but actually swindles you out of it. By contrast, Social Security is paying for retirement benefits in return for...retirement benefits, and you get exactly what you pay into it and no more. It promises no more. Ponzi schemes, by definition, do promise more.
I did a quick search of Google using the key words "Social Security", "private accounts", and "ponzi scheme", and this is what I found. It's interesting reading. In it, the write draws what he thinks are some parallels between Social Security and ponzi schemes, but makes important distinctions that separate the two.
http://andrewgbiggs.blogspot.com/2008/12/s...nzi-scheme.html
QUOTE
Cramer is correct that, like a Ponzi scheme, payments to earlier participants in Social Security are financed by payments from later participants. Moreover, also like a Ponzi scheme, in Social Security or any pay-as-you-go program the highest returns flow to the earliest participants.
What makes a Social Security program sustainable is its ability to alter the returns paid to succeeding generations of participants. The earliest participants in Social Security received average annual returns of over 20 percent. Were these returns promised to later participants then, like a Ponzi scheme, the program would collapse. However, returns for following generations have been far more modest, if not modest enough to make the program affordable at current tax rates.
What makes a Social Security program sustainable is its ability to alter the returns paid to succeeding generations of participants. The earliest participants in Social Security received average annual returns of over 20 percent. Were these returns promised to later participants then, like a Ponzi scheme, the program would collapse. However, returns for following generations have been far more modest, if not modest enough to make the program affordable at current tax rates.
The writer goes on to argue:
QUOTE
All that said, it's important to make policy distinctions between a Ponzi scheme, for which the sponsor rightly goes to jail, and a paygo program like Social Security, which has both advantages and disadvantages based on its choice of financing.
It's often said (even by me) that a paygo program pays lower returns than a fully funded program that invests in real assets, but that's not really true. A mature paygo program pays a lower rate of return at any given time, but it also paid returns to a generation of retireees who would have received no benefits at all under a fully funded system (that is, individuals who were retired at the time the funded system began). Moreover, this initial generation of beneficiaries received very high returns under the paygo program. Once this difference in the number of generations receiving benefits is accounted for, the rate of return difference between a paygo program and a funded program narrows considerably.
Moreover, a paygo program can potentially spread risk between generations in ways that a funded program can't. In theory, a paygo program can enable redistribution between richer and poorer cohorts, as I discussed here. Unfortunately, the current Social Security program isn't well set up to accomplish this risk-sharing between generations. But with reforms, this Ponzi aspect of Social Security could end up being beneficial.
It's often said (even by me) that a paygo program pays lower returns than a fully funded program that invests in real assets, but that's not really true. A mature paygo program pays a lower rate of return at any given time, but it also paid returns to a generation of retireees who would have received no benefits at all under a fully funded system (that is, individuals who were retired at the time the funded system began). Moreover, this initial generation of beneficiaries received very high returns under the paygo program. Once this difference in the number of generations receiving benefits is accounted for, the rate of return difference between a paygo program and a funded program narrows considerably.
Moreover, a paygo program can potentially spread risk between generations in ways that a funded program can't. In theory, a paygo program can enable redistribution between richer and poorer cohorts, as I discussed here. Unfortunately, the current Social Security program isn't well set up to accomplish this risk-sharing between generations. But with reforms, this Ponzi aspect of Social Security could end up being beneficial.
I disagree with calling any aspect of Social Security a ponzi scheme or even parallel to one, because by its very nature a ponzi scheme has but one purpose: to swindle people out of their money while giving nothing in return. Social Security, on the other hand, does provide something in return and does not swindle anyone. Paul Krugman, who recently won the Nobel Prize for Economics, wrote of the privatization scheme:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/opinion/4krugman.html
QUOTE
Here's the money quote: "In return for the opportunity to get the benefits from the personal account, the person forgoes a certain amount of benefits from the traditional system. Now, the way that election is structured, the person comes out ahead if their personal account exceeds a 3 percent rate of return" - after inflation - "which is the rate of return that the trust fund bonds receive. So, basically, the net effect on an individual's benefits would be zero if his personal account earned a 3 percent rate of return."
Translation: If you put part of your payroll taxes into a personal account, your future benefits will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the amount you would have had to repay if you had borrowed the money at a real interest rate of 3 percent.
Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution got it exactly right: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan."
For years, privatizers - including Mr. Bush - have claimed that people would do better with private accounts than with traditional Social Security even if they played it safe and invested in U.S. government bonds (which yield 3 percent after inflation).
But the official at the briefing made it clear that his boss was fibbing: if you invested your private account in government bonds, you would face benefit cuts equal in value to your investment, so you would be no better off than under the current system.
The only way to get ahead would be to invest in risky assets like stocks, and hope for higher yields. But if the investment went wrong and you earned less than 3 percent after inflation, your benefit cuts would leave you poorer than if you had never opened that private account.
So people are expected to take a loan from the government and use it to buy stocks, and if that turns out to have been a mistake - well, too bad.
Translation: If you put part of your payroll taxes into a personal account, your future benefits will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the amount you would have had to repay if you had borrowed the money at a real interest rate of 3 percent.
Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution got it exactly right: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan."
For years, privatizers - including Mr. Bush - have claimed that people would do better with private accounts than with traditional Social Security even if they played it safe and invested in U.S. government bonds (which yield 3 percent after inflation).
But the official at the briefing made it clear that his boss was fibbing: if you invested your private account in government bonds, you would face benefit cuts equal in value to your investment, so you would be no better off than under the current system.
The only way to get ahead would be to invest in risky assets like stocks, and hope for higher yields. But if the investment went wrong and you earned less than 3 percent after inflation, your benefit cuts would leave you poorer than if you had never opened that private account.
So people are expected to take a loan from the government and use it to buy stocks, and if that turns out to have been a mistake - well, too bad.
Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me. As for your assertion that Social Security isn't guaranteed, you're wrong. Federal law ensures that the government is obligated to pay out benefits. It is not allowed to default. What's more, according to two independent offices, there are enough funds in Social Security to last us into the middle of the century.
http://www.prorev.com/socsec.htm
QUOTE
DEAN BAKER, PROSPECT - The most recent projections from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office show that Social Security will have enough money between projected taxes and the bonds in the trust fund to pay all benefits through the year 2046, with no changes whatsoever. This is very important to understand when someone like Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke proposes cuts to Social Security. Workers have already paid for these benefits. The Social Security tax is very regressive. Its regressivity can be justified by the progressive payback structure of the program. However, if the benefits are cut, at a point when the program can still easily afford the benefits (e.g. 10-20 years), then the government has effectively stolen from the people who paid Social Security taxes.
Classes beckon, but I'll post more when I get home.
QUOTE
Mike: That is precisely what taking money from Social Security, which guarantees the payouts to retirees, and giving it to Wall Street gamblers does. It promises something in return for your retirement money, but actually swindles you out of it.
I fail to see how allowing you to keep 4% of you're money (taxes are the "people's money right?") swindling anyone out of anything. Moreover a private account is not giving money to "Wall Street Gamblers." A private account allows you to invest it how you choose in no way could be mistaken for a "Ponzi scheme." You are actually making my point for me below...
QUOTE
Mike: By contrast, Social Security is paying for retirement benefits in return for...retirement benefits, and you get exactly what you pay into it and no more. It promises no more. Ponzi schemes, by definition, do promise more.
You are failing to grasp how a Ponzi scheme works. Of course they (Ponzi Schemes) promise more... they promise a higher return on your money... The same money you invested according to a person who is running a ponzi scheme, overpromises steals, and in turn, underdelivers because he/she relies on new investors to fund the scheme.
What you are failing to understand is that the government has been acting in this type of manner. For years they have diverted (stealing) funds from the trust and using it for other business, as enabled by the Supreme Court. They are paying current beneficiaries with new worker's (investor's) taxes as they enter the workforce. The problem is that current and near future beneficiaries are going to outnumber current payers therefore making it impossible to sustain (sounds alot like Madoff huh?). Couple the imbalance of payers/beneficiaries with more and more benefits being proposed and we have quite a predicament. This is more like a ponzi scheme.
QUOTE
Mike: What's more, according to two independent offices, there are enough funds in Social Security to last us into the middle of the century.
JT: When are you planning on retiring? I believe you and I will be retiring around the same time. Do you actually believe that Social Security will be paying out as much or more in benefits by 2041? Your sources say that in a best case scenario we have funds to last until then, however, according to the Wall Street Journal, it could be insolvent by 2017. That is, it is projected to run a deficit (therefore the government will have to borrow/tax more to keep the charade going).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB111159767324787693.html
"Mr. Hubbard's remarks, in a White House interview, came on the same day as the trustees for Social Security and Medicare, in their annual reports, found that Social Security will begin running a deficit in 2017, and its accounting trust fund will be exhausted in 2041 -- both dates a year sooner than the trustees projected a year ago."
JT: Here's another interesting projection... Medicare, our current government run healthcare is projected to be bankrupt by 2020.
"According to their report, Medicare's health-insurance trust fund began in 2004 to have fewer payroll-tax revenues coming in than it was paying out for hospital care, and the trend is accelerating. They projected the fund would be exhausted in 2020 -- a year later than projected in last year's report, but a meaningless change given worsening trends, trustees said. Costs to Medicare's trust fund for outpatient care and prescription drugs will quadruple by 2024, they reported, requiring ever-higher government funds and beneficiary premiums."
JT: And you think the government wouldn't do the same to socialized healthcare? Please name one government entitiy (excluding the military) that the government runs efficiently.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 20 2009, 08:19 AM)
QUOTE
That is precisely what taking money from Social Security, which guarantees the payouts to retirees, and giving it to Wall Street gamblers does. It promises something in return for your retirement money, but actually swindles you out of it. By contrast, Social Security is paying for retirement benefits in return for...retirement benefits, and you get exactly what you pay into it and no more. It promises no more. Ponzi schemes, by definition, do promise more.
Mike, you have it backwards.
Social Security makes no promises, it makes projections. It is, and always has been, a tax on the working class to pay for those unable (and often unwilling) to work. It is a current tax used to pay current expenses. As a tax, it pulls in more than it needs to pay the its current needs. And since it is a source of revenue that Congress views as its money, instead of reducing the tax on the people, Congress has chosen to expand the size of the receiving group far in excess of the original scope of the program. This is little more than influence peddling at our expense. Even so, as of today the government is still receiving more in the Social Security tax than it currently dispersing. And the Congress continues to use these "surplus" funds for their own non-SSA projects.
The Supreme Court has ruled that your Social Security benefits are not guaranteed by law. Since President Eisenhower’s administration, the Social Security trust fund has been included in the general fund, which means Congress can treat your benefits like welfare or pork barrel spending. Since that time, Congress has used over $2.33 trillion of these trust funds and left paper IOUs in place of it. In 2008 alone, Congress raided $108.2 billion from Social Security funds.Source
Again - No benefits under Social Security are guaranteed. My brother and sister-in-law receive Social Security, and their benefits have changed several times in the past two years. These changes are called "adjustments", but they are changes nevertheless.
I received my annual form from the Social Security Administration last week entitled What Social Security Means To You (Form 032009R 05A1 06286K). Most of us have seen this form in the past. It is the record of what you have paid in to the system, and a projection of what you might get based on projected retirement dates.
Quoting from the government document (information was scanned in, then copied and pasted to this quote exactly as it appears on the form with no additional comments):
QUOTE
This Social Security Statement can help you plan for your financial future. It provides estimates of your Social Security benefits under current law and updates your latest reported earnings.
Please read this Statement carefully. If you see a mistake, please let us know. That's important because your benefits will be based on our record of your lifetime earnings. We recommend you keep a copy of your Statement with your financial records.
Social Security is for people of all ages • We're more than a retirement program. Social Security also can provide benefits if you become disabled and help support your family after you die.
Work to build a secure future • Social Security is the largest source of income for most elderly Americans today, but Social Security was never intended to be your only source of income when you retire. You will also need other savings, investments, pensions or retirement accounts to make sure you have enough money to live comfortably when you retire.
Saving and investing wisely are important not only for you and your family, but for the entire country. If you want to learn more about how and why to save, you should visit www.mymoney.gov, a federal government website dedicated to teaching all Americans the basics of financial management.
About Social Security's future
Social Security is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement.
In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted* and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations.
* These estimates are based on the intermediate assumptions from the Social Security Trustees' Annual Report to the Congress.
Please read this Statement carefully. If you see a mistake, please let us know. That's important because your benefits will be based on our record of your lifetime earnings. We recommend you keep a copy of your Statement with your financial records.
Social Security is for people of all ages • We're more than a retirement program. Social Security also can provide benefits if you become disabled and help support your family after you die.
Work to build a secure future • Social Security is the largest source of income for most elderly Americans today, but Social Security was never intended to be your only source of income when you retire. You will also need other savings, investments, pensions or retirement accounts to make sure you have enough money to live comfortably when you retire.
Saving and investing wisely are important not only for you and your family, but for the entire country. If you want to learn more about how and why to save, you should visit www.mymoney.gov, a federal government website dedicated to teaching all Americans the basics of financial management.
About Social Security's future
Social Security is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement.
In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted* and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations.
* These estimates are based on the intermediate assumptions from the Social Security Trustees' Annual Report to the Congress.
In the first bolded sub-header, the Social Security document calls itself a retirement program. This, sir, is what makes it a Ponzi scheme. It is NOT a retirement program. And it fails to tell you that the funds are in the general fund. If the money is in the General Fund and we are running a deficeit, there IS no money in the General Fund.
Don't gloss over this! Think about it for a second....if you put $100 a week into your joint bank account specifically to buy a boat, and each month your spouse wrote checks that overdrafted that account - exactly where is the money for your boat? If this cycle is repeated monthly (as our government continues to outspend revenues), at the end of ten years, do you think you will be able to buy that boat you have been saving for? Of course not!
What the document DOES tell you is (all bold type, italics, and underlines are mine and not in the original document. Anything in parenthesis are my comments and not in the original document):
QUOTE
1. ...This Social Security Statement ... provides estimates (not guarantees!) of your Social Security benefits under current law (and laws can be changed at anytime!) and updates your latest reported earnings.
2. ... but Social Security was never intended to be your only source of income when you retire. You will also need other savings, investments, pensions or retirement accounts to make sure you have enough money to live comfortably when you retire.
3. Saving and investing wisely are important not only for you and your family, but for the entire country. (This is because there will be no SS when you get ready to retire, and they go on to explain why....)
4. Social Security is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement. (This the Ponzi scheme - look at your own post about what Ponzi did and promised, and compare it to the SSA's own document!)
5. In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. (Acknowledging that the fund will have reached a tipping point and is no longer self sustaining - the mark of a Ponzi Scheme)
6. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.
7. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations. (We need more of your money to give back what you think we promised in the first place - but never really promised at all!)
2. ... but Social Security was never intended to be your only source of income when you retire. You will also need other savings, investments, pensions or retirement accounts to make sure you have enough money to live comfortably when you retire.
3. Saving and investing wisely are important not only for you and your family, but for the entire country. (This is because there will be no SS when you get ready to retire, and they go on to explain why....)
4. Social Security is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement. (This the Ponzi scheme - look at your own post about what Ponzi did and promised, and compare it to the SSA's own document!)
5. In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. (Acknowledging that the fund will have reached a tipping point and is no longer self sustaining - the mark of a Ponzi Scheme)
6. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.
7. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations. (We need more of your money to give back what you think we promised in the first place - but never really promised at all!)
This post has run long, so I will cease at this point. I will address the private investment plan in my next post.
QUOTE (CJT @ Apr 20 2009, 01:46 PM)
I fail to see how allowing you to keep 4% of you're money (taxes are the "people's money right?") swindling anyone out of anything. Moreover a private account is not giving money to "Wall Street Gamblers." A private account allows you to invest it how you choose in no way could be mistaken for a "Ponzi scheme." You are actually making my point for me below...
If I may interject -
I believe the part that Mike is calling a Ponzi scheme is the part that under the Government's plan, where any social security benefits you were to receive would be reduced by the amount, plus interest, that you were allowed to invest. So if you lose, how sad for you.
QUOTE ('Mike')
"In return for the opportunity to get the benefits from the personal account, the person forgoes a certain amount of benefits from the traditional system. Now, the way that election is structured, the person comes out ahead if their personal account exceeds a 3 percent rate of return" - after inflation - "which is the rate of return that the trust fund bonds receive. So, basically, the net effect on an individual's benefits would be zero if his personal account earned a 3 percent rate of return."
Personally, I would be willing to forego the "security" of the government handling 3% - 4% of MY money in exchange for the opportunity to have something - even a 3% - 4% plus investment interest. CUrrently, 100% of MY money is being funneled into a system that is already telling us that it will be bankrupt by 2017 (less than 6 years from now), and severely unable to pay it's bills by 2041. If I blow the 3% - 4% in the stock market, or real estate, or gold - at least it was my mistake, and not some politician raiding the till to buy votes. But then again, I have the opportunity to make a better than average return, and actually have some return on my money.
QUOTE
Mike: By contrast, Social Security is paying for retirement benefits in return for...retirement benefits, and you get exactly what you pay into it and no more. It promises no more. Ponzi schemes, by definition, do promise more.
No, sir, this is not true. It promises a great deal more. Currently, the government is taking 6.2% of my salary and my employers are/have ponying up an additional 6.2 percent. Since I also have a small business, I pay 12.4% of that income to SSA. According to the last Social Security form, I have paid $60,477 into the system - not "my account", the system. If I retired right now, and received the full projected benefit, this $60,477 would be exhausted in less than 5 years. According to actuarial tables, I have at least 15 more years to go. SSA - under the current system - will pay until my death, and then my spouse will get benefits. Currently, the majority of the people receive more than they have been forced to donate. That will change by 2017.
Politicians are promising cradle to grave security for all. And the Social Security Administration is and will continue to be the funding source. Everything from income for illegal aliens to food stamps, to housing, to re-education and training. These are current programs. Who knows what new "entitlements the politicians will come up with to more firmly solidify their control over groups of people who turn to the government to be the be all, end all?
QUOTE ('JT')
: And you think the government wouldn't do the same to socialized healthcare? Please name one government entitiy (excluding the military) that the government runs efficiently.
Sir, while I agree with your point of view as stated, I question your exclusion of the military. May I remind you that the defense department is the very first place the liberal party looks to cut out waste, fat, bloat, and corruption? Why would you exclude the military from a list of poorly run and inefficient organizations?
QUOTE
SteveT: Sir, while I agree with your point of view as stated, I question your exclusion of the military. May I remind you that the defense department is the very first place the liberal party looks to cut out waste, fat, bloat, and corruption? Why would you exclude the military from a list of poorly run and inefficient organizations?
Well, when you put it that way, you're correct, the government does not run the military efficiently either! Either way, the point of the thread is healthcare. What are your thoughts on socialized or government run healthcare?
QUOTE
SteveT: The Supreme Court has ruled that your Social Security benefits are not guaranteed by law. Since President Eisenhower’s administration, the Social Security trust fund has been included in the general fund, which means Congress can treat your benefits like welfare or pork barrel spending. Since that time, Congress has used over $2.33 trillion of these trust funds and left paper IOUs in place of it. In 2008 alone, Congress raided $108.2 billion from Social Security funds.Source
SteveT, I'm not sure how Odai Hussien made it into our conversation, but your source backing your claims (eventhough I might agree with it) have nothing to do with Social Security, Healthcare, or anything even remotely close to what we are talking about! Are you trying to pull a fast one on us?
QUOTE (CJT @ Apr 22 2009, 06:24 PM)
QUOTE
SteveT: The Supreme Court has ruled that your Social Security benefits are not guaranteed by law. Since President Eisenhower’s administration, the Social Security trust fund has been included in the general fund, which means Congress can treat your benefits like welfare or pork barrel spending. Since that time, Congress has used over $2.33 trillion of these trust funds and left paper IOUs in place of it. In 2008 alone, Congress raided $108.2 billion from Social Security funds.Source
SteveT, I'm not sure how Odai Hussien made it into our conversation, but your source backing your claims (eventhough I might agree with it) have nothing to do with Social Security, Healthcare, or anything even remotely close to what we are talking about! Are you trying to pull a fast one on us?
AAARRRGGGHHH!
That is what happens when you chase chickens. That was a source for a post about how the previous regime tortured its own people - to include the highly visible national soccer team.
The source for the information was here. The relevant piece was : "Amendments of the 1960s
In 1961, retirement at age 62 was extended to men, and the tax rate was increased to 6.0%.
In 1962, the changing role of the female worker was acknowledged when benefits of covered women could be collected by dependent husbands, widowers, and children. These individuals, however, had to be able to prove their dependency.[48]
Medicare was added in 1965 by the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program. Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue.
In 1965, the age at which widows could begin collecting benefits was reduced to 60. Widowers were not included in this change. When divorce, rather than death, became the major cause of marriages ending, divorcées were added to the list of recipients. Divorcées over the age of 65 who had been married for at least 20 years, remained unmarried, and could demonstrate dependency on their ex-husbands received benefits.[49]
The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity.[50] The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would."
From your source....
Well, when you can't get it passed constitutionally, just replace the people that make the decisions! I LOVE IT! I do like how liberals will use the bench to get their agenda pushed... Constitution be damned!
QUOTE
In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and New York State's minimum-wage law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.[27] The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal was heated and widespread, and lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May, 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation.
Well, when you can't get it passed constitutionally, just replace the people that make the decisions! I LOVE IT! I do like how liberals will use the bench to get their agenda pushed... Constitution be damned!
QUOTE (CJT @ Apr 22 2009, 09:36 PM)
From your source....
Well, when you can't get it passed constitutionally, just replace the people that make the decisions! I LOVE IT! I do like how liberals will use the bench to get their agenda pushed... Constitution be damned!
QUOTE
In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and New York State's minimum-wage law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.[27] The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal was heated and widespread, and lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May, 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation.
Well, when you can't get it passed constitutionally, just replace the people that make the decisions! I LOVE IT! I do like how liberals will use the bench to get their agenda pushed... Constitution be damned!
I do believe this is an excellent example of WHY the schools have been dumbed down! The educated recognize the truth in George Santayana's words: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. And you can't remember what was never taught!
Let folks remember only what you tell them happened in the past, not what actually happened. Let folks think that FDR was a benevolent Godfather, and not how he made things worse. Then they won't see or understand it when you do the same thing - and have the audacity of calling it CHANGE!
I just want to point to a thread wherein I quote an entry by David Sirota, who reports on right-wing senator Ben nelson's admission that single-payer is better than the for-profit system.
http://liberal-pride.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3272
Far from being the costly, inefficient system detractors claim it would be if enacted, single-payer would actually be so attractive to uninsured and under-insured Americans that the senator — who is in the back pocket of insurance and pharmaceutical companies — fears that private insurance couldn't compete as is. There is only one reason for this fear: single-payer health care works. Just ask the nations that have already implemented it or something close to it, like France or Sweden.
In fact, according to the World Health Organization, we are #37 of listed nations when it comes to providing adequate health care for all citizens. Sure, that puts us two rankings above Cuba, but then, the U.S. embargo is largely responsible for hindering the provision of services in that country. Cuban citizens enjoy far greater access to health care and are even exporting it to other nations, according to a report at Alternet.org.
And Steve, FDR's efforts to stack the Supreme Court failed — and rightly so. But he was far from being the only president to make the attempt. The shrub successfully shifted the balance of the court system to the hard right, and judges from Bybee to Owens have in fact ruled in violation of the Constitution to support corporations over the citizenry. Bybee is guilty of war crimes, while Owens is a corporate stooge whose rulings in favor of big business have resulted in at least one avoidable death.
http://liberal-pride.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3272
Far from being the costly, inefficient system detractors claim it would be if enacted, single-payer would actually be so attractive to uninsured and under-insured Americans that the senator — who is in the back pocket of insurance and pharmaceutical companies — fears that private insurance couldn't compete as is. There is only one reason for this fear: single-payer health care works. Just ask the nations that have already implemented it or something close to it, like France or Sweden.
In fact, according to the World Health Organization, we are #37 of listed nations when it comes to providing adequate health care for all citizens. Sure, that puts us two rankings above Cuba, but then, the U.S. embargo is largely responsible for hindering the provision of services in that country. Cuban citizens enjoy far greater access to health care and are even exporting it to other nations, according to a report at Alternet.org.
And Steve, FDR's efforts to stack the Supreme Court failed — and rightly so. But he was far from being the only president to make the attempt. The shrub successfully shifted the balance of the court system to the hard right, and judges from Bybee to Owens have in fact ruled in violation of the Constitution to support corporations over the citizenry. Bybee is guilty of war crimes, while Owens is a corporate stooge whose rulings in favor of big business have resulted in at least one avoidable death.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ May 7 2009, 10:49 AM)
I just want to point to a thread wherein I quote an entry by David Sirota, who reports on right-wing senator Ben nelson's admission that single-payer is better than the for-profit system.
Let's be totally clear here, Nelson is not saying it's better, he's stating that the private health care system can't compete with the government. When the govt. becomes involved, it no longer becomes a "free market." It's obvious that the govt. has no intention of turning a profit, and on top of that, write the rulebook. Medicare has been a disaster! Its driving doctors to either turn patients away, or go out of business. Most are making the first choice...
http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/us/...topmedicare.htm
QUOTE
For privately insured or uninsured patients, Dr. Mackool charges anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000, depending on complexity, to perform the cataract procedure, which involves removing the cataract and inserting a lens implant. To perform the same procedure on a Medicare patient last year, Medicare allowed him to charge only $855.82 -- reimbursed by Medicare at 80% and paid 20% by the patient. This year, with the reimbursement cuts and other adjustments to the formula, Dr. Mackool can charge Medicare patients just $768.52 -- a 10% decline.
With more than 80% of his patients on Medicare, the consequences for Dr. Mackool's practice are severe. Recently, he had to cut two of his 31 employees. Now, he says he is considering whether to refuse to participate in Medicare at all. "We've already done the numbers," Dr. Mackool says. "If I drop out of Medicare and I see a third of the patients I see now, our practice would actually come out better."
With more than 80% of his patients on Medicare, the consequences for Dr. Mackool's practice are severe. Recently, he had to cut two of his 31 employees. Now, he says he is considering whether to refuse to participate in Medicare at all. "We've already done the numbers," Dr. Mackool says. "If I drop out of Medicare and I see a third of the patients I see now, our practice would actually come out better."
Tell me Mike, how is this better? If we do not give doctors incentives to work, we'll lose our best doctors! It's that simple... It's also the reason you see the flight of patients in government run healthcare systems such as the UK and Canada...
QUOTE
Mike: Far from being the costly, inefficient system detractors claim it would be if enacted, single-payer would actually be so attractive to uninsured and under-insured Americans that the senator — who is in the back pocket of insurance and pharmaceutical companies — fears that private insurance couldn't compete as is.
Of course they couldn't compete, that's the whole point! That's economics 101 my friend... Private companies are at a major disadvantage when competing against the govt. That's plain and simple...
QUOTE
Mike: There is only one reason for this fear: single-payer health care works. Just ask the nations that have already implemented it or something close to it, like France or Sweden.
We shoot down your first attempt with Canada and the UK and now you want to bring up France and Sweden? Please, they are experiencing the same problems as the former.
But, since you want to bring them up....
Is this the same France?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm
QUOTE
The report says citizens must pay more and doctors must alter their behaviour. Failure to do so could add 66 billion euros a year to France's public budget deficit by 2020, it adds.
Sounds really efficient....
QUOTE
The warning comes after thousands of health workers protested on Thursday over staff shortages and the "creeping privatisation" of the health system.
Is this because their system is working? "Creeping "privatisation" would lead me to believe that the system is not working... oh, yeah.. what about their deficits...
QUOTE
Experts have already warned that a projected healthcare deficit of 10.9 billion euros this year could rise to 29 billion euros by 2010, unless action is taken.
Man, this sure is sounding familiar isn't it?
And what about Sweden you say?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1115567
QUOTE
However, strict cost containment means that patients are facing decreasing access to care. Medical staff are leaving for the private sector, and more than 20% of hospital beds are now privately funded. In the long term such privatisation may seriously threaten the equity and sustainability of a universal system that depends on loyalty from broad constituencies.
Seems like both are heading towards privitization... Thanks for helping make my point!
QUOTE
Mike: In fact, according to the World Health Organization, we are #37 of listed nations when it comes to providing adequate health care for all citizens.
Well, now your screwing up statistics... You're not comparing apples to apples... The US healthcare system is not meant to provide healthcare for all citizens, so I'm actually surprised that we rank that high! However, since the ranking is so low, is it only taking the averages from Medicare and the VA since that is a true apples to apples analogy. If not, these rankings are about as good for toilet paper as is the WHO...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm
This is a five-year-old link. What's your current source? This one is from 2007, a more recent year:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/
And this link is from last year:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=92419273
Although France is among the most expensive countries for providing health care, it still spends roughly half what the U.S. does — and it covers everyone, not just those who can afford it.
NEXT. (Incidentally, you didn't "shoot down" Canada's health care system.)
Your link regarding Sweden is ten years old. Haven't you got anything more recent? This one is from 2005, but it provides a far more accurate view on that nation's health care system than the dishonest one you promoted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4460098.stm
And here's another from last year.
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2950
No system is perfect, but single-payer has proven far more effective than private insurance.
This is a five-year-old link. What's your current source? This one is from 2007, a more recent year:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/
QUOTE
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
And this link is from last year:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=92419273
QUOTE
France, like the United States, relies on both private insurance and government insurance. Also, just like in America, people generally get their insurance through their employer.
In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist, Dutton says.
In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist, Dutton says.
QUOTE
Americans often assume that when people get universal coverage, they give up their choice in doctors, hospitals and care. That's not the case in France, Dutton says. The system is set up both to ensure that patients have lots of choice in picking doctors and specialists and to ensure that doctors are not constrained in making medical decisions.
In France, the national insurance program is funded mostly by payroll and income taxes. Those payments go to several quasi-public insurance funds that then negotiate with medical unions to set doctors' fees. (Doctors can choose to work outside this system, and a growing minority now charge what patients are willing to pay out of pocket.) The government regulates most hospital fees. This system works collectively to keep costs down.
When someone goes to see a doctor, the national insurance program pays 70 percent of the bill. Most of the other 30 percent gets picked up by supplemental private insurance, which almost everyone has. It's affordable, and much of it gets paid for by a person's employer.
"There are no uninsured in France," says Victor Rodwin, a professor of health policy at New York University, who is affiliated with the International Longevity Center. "That's completely unheard of. There is no case of anybody going broke over their health costs. In fact, the system is so designed that for the 3 or 4 or 5 percent of the patients who are the very sickest, those patients are exempt from their co-payments to begin with. There are no deductibles."
Treating The Sickest
In France, the sicker you are, the more coverage you get. For people with one of 30 long-term and expensive illnesses — such as diabetes, mental illness and cancer — the government picks up 100 percent of their health care costs, including surgeries, therapies and drugs.
France has made an unusual guarantee that every cancer patient can get any drug, including the most expensive and even experimental ones that are still being tested, says Dr. Fabian Calvo, deputy director of France's National Cancer Institute. This kind of access is why the French — unlike Americans — say they are highly satisfied with their health care system, he says.
"It's a feeling of safety — that if you have a big problem, you could have access to the good therapy," Calvo says.
When compared with people in other countries, the French live longer and healthier lives. Rodwin says that's because good care starts at birth. There are months of paid job leave for mothers who work. New mothers get a child allowance. There are neighborhood health clinics for new mothers and their babies, home visits from nurses and subsidized day care.
In France, the national insurance program is funded mostly by payroll and income taxes. Those payments go to several quasi-public insurance funds that then negotiate with medical unions to set doctors' fees. (Doctors can choose to work outside this system, and a growing minority now charge what patients are willing to pay out of pocket.) The government regulates most hospital fees. This system works collectively to keep costs down.
When someone goes to see a doctor, the national insurance program pays 70 percent of the bill. Most of the other 30 percent gets picked up by supplemental private insurance, which almost everyone has. It's affordable, and much of it gets paid for by a person's employer.
"There are no uninsured in France," says Victor Rodwin, a professor of health policy at New York University, who is affiliated with the International Longevity Center. "That's completely unheard of. There is no case of anybody going broke over their health costs. In fact, the system is so designed that for the 3 or 4 or 5 percent of the patients who are the very sickest, those patients are exempt from their co-payments to begin with. There are no deductibles."
Treating The Sickest
In France, the sicker you are, the more coverage you get. For people with one of 30 long-term and expensive illnesses — such as diabetes, mental illness and cancer — the government picks up 100 percent of their health care costs, including surgeries, therapies and drugs.
France has made an unusual guarantee that every cancer patient can get any drug, including the most expensive and even experimental ones that are still being tested, says Dr. Fabian Calvo, deputy director of France's National Cancer Institute. This kind of access is why the French — unlike Americans — say they are highly satisfied with their health care system, he says.
"It's a feeling of safety — that if you have a big problem, you could have access to the good therapy," Calvo says.
When compared with people in other countries, the French live longer and healthier lives. Rodwin says that's because good care starts at birth. There are months of paid job leave for mothers who work. New mothers get a child allowance. There are neighborhood health clinics for new mothers and their babies, home visits from nurses and subsidized day care.
Although France is among the most expensive countries for providing health care, it still spends roughly half what the U.S. does — and it covers everyone, not just those who can afford it.
NEXT. (Incidentally, you didn't "shoot down" Canada's health care system.)
Your link regarding Sweden is ten years old. Haven't you got anything more recent? This one is from 2005, but it provides a far more accurate view on that nation's health care system than the dishonest one you promoted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4460098.stm
QUOTE
In the early 1980s, the country was splashing out 9.2% of its GDP on health care - the highest in Europe and over 3% more than the NHS got at the time.
Two decades on it may still be spending the same proportion, but many countries, including the UK, are still playing catch up.
The result is that Sweden has more doctors per head than most - 3.3 per 1,000 compared to two per 1,000 in the UK - allowing patients to have direct access to everyone from hospital consultant down.
But it is not just a matter of money. Sweden, traditionally reliant on treating people in hospital rather than in the community, recognised in the mid-1990s that as people began to live longer, health services had to change to meet increasing demand.
As hospital treatment tends to be expensive compared to GP or district nursing care, Sweden started to push for more patients to be treated in primary care in much the same way ministers want the NHS to do.
Over the last eight years the number of visits to GPs has gradually risen, compared to a drop in the number of consultant appointments.
The Swedes have also tried to push patients through the hospital system much more quickly.
In 1992, the average length of stay stood at 7.9 days, compared to just over four now. In the UK it is nearly six.
Having less people treated in hospitals, for less time, has allowed the Swedish county councils, which are responsible for hospitals and GP services and fund 70% of health services through their tax raising powers, to plough more investment into community services.
The number of people being given medical care at home for conditions such as heart disease and diabetes has risen from 35,000 people to 80,000 people.
And there has been an increase in local health centres, which provide an extended range of services from GP care to physiotherapy.
Roger Molin, deputy director of the Swedish Association of Local Authorities, said the country has several advantages over the UK in pushing through such reforms.
He said the devolved nature of the health system meant councils were more responsive to patients needs than a more centrally-controlled system such as the NHS.
Two decades on it may still be spending the same proportion, but many countries, including the UK, are still playing catch up.
The result is that Sweden has more doctors per head than most - 3.3 per 1,000 compared to two per 1,000 in the UK - allowing patients to have direct access to everyone from hospital consultant down.
But it is not just a matter of money. Sweden, traditionally reliant on treating people in hospital rather than in the community, recognised in the mid-1990s that as people began to live longer, health services had to change to meet increasing demand.
As hospital treatment tends to be expensive compared to GP or district nursing care, Sweden started to push for more patients to be treated in primary care in much the same way ministers want the NHS to do.
Over the last eight years the number of visits to GPs has gradually risen, compared to a drop in the number of consultant appointments.
The Swedes have also tried to push patients through the hospital system much more quickly.
In 1992, the average length of stay stood at 7.9 days, compared to just over four now. In the UK it is nearly six.
Having less people treated in hospitals, for less time, has allowed the Swedish county councils, which are responsible for hospitals and GP services and fund 70% of health services through their tax raising powers, to plough more investment into community services.
The number of people being given medical care at home for conditions such as heart disease and diabetes has risen from 35,000 people to 80,000 people.
And there has been an increase in local health centres, which provide an extended range of services from GP care to physiotherapy.
Roger Molin, deputy director of the Swedish Association of Local Authorities, said the country has several advantages over the UK in pushing through such reforms.
He said the devolved nature of the health system meant councils were more responsive to patients needs than a more centrally-controlled system such as the NHS.
QUOTE
And he added: "Traditionally, nurses have had a much greater role in health care here. They have got involved in treating long-term conditions such as asthma.
"But there is more flexibility in our system. Patients can either register with a specific GP - as 40% do - or use any doctor they like".
But Mr Molin also said Swedish councils have not been afraid to use the private sector.
About a tenth of health care is provided privately, but unlike the UK much of this is at a community level rather than in hospitals.
Mr Molin said private providers have brought more efficiency to the system, but had been largely contained to the primary sectors as it was not so easy to introduce change to large institutions such as hospitals.
The use of the private sector is also cautiously welcomed by doctors.
Dr Thomas Flodin, a board member of the Swedish Medical Association, said he did not have any objection to increased use of the private sector.
"What is important is not who provides the care, but that it remains available to everyone."
And this seems to be one of the underlying characteristics of the Swedish system.
Unlike in the UK where a two-tier system has developed with wealthy patients paying to go private, there is virtually no market for such care in Sweden.
While patients have to pay for public health care, fees are nominal, limited to a ceiling of £60 a year.
Only a few thousand people have private health insurance and firms which provide services for the public health system are banned from providing private care.
"But there is more flexibility in our system. Patients can either register with a specific GP - as 40% do - or use any doctor they like".
But Mr Molin also said Swedish councils have not been afraid to use the private sector.
About a tenth of health care is provided privately, but unlike the UK much of this is at a community level rather than in hospitals.
Mr Molin said private providers have brought more efficiency to the system, but had been largely contained to the primary sectors as it was not so easy to introduce change to large institutions such as hospitals.
The use of the private sector is also cautiously welcomed by doctors.
Dr Thomas Flodin, a board member of the Swedish Medical Association, said he did not have any objection to increased use of the private sector.
"What is important is not who provides the care, but that it remains available to everyone."
And this seems to be one of the underlying characteristics of the Swedish system.
Unlike in the UK where a two-tier system has developed with wealthy patients paying to go private, there is virtually no market for such care in Sweden.
While patients have to pay for public health care, fees are nominal, limited to a ceiling of £60 a year.
Only a few thousand people have private health insurance and firms which provide services for the public health system are banned from providing private care.
And here's another from last year.
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2950
No system is perfect, but single-payer has proven far more effective than private insurance.
QUOTE
Mike: This is a five-year-old link. What's your current source?
Now you're playing the tit-for tat game, the link you posted for the WHO ranking is from 2000! That's nearly a decade ago! Plus, they don't even conduct it anymore.... However, I am open minded and will read from sources (even if I think they are too liberal)... even your NPR source says that the rankings are bogus...
QUOTE
Some researchers, however, said that study was flawed, arguing that there might be things other than a country's health care system that determined factors like longevity.
As I stated earlier... your rankings are pretty much meaningless...
It also states that
QUOTE
"Americans assume that if it's in Europe, which France is, that it's socialized medicine," he says. "The French don't consider their system socialized. In fact, they detest socialized medicine. For the French, that's the British, that's the Canadians. It's not the French system."
So what type of health care system are you advocating? You flip flop starting from the UK and Canada... to France (which obviously has a different type of system) which is a hybrid of govt. socialized and privatized health care... You first praise the UK and Canada, and try to lump it in with France's system... They're totally different!
QUOTE
France, like the United States, relies on both private insurance and government insurance. Also, just like in America, people generally get their insurance through their employer.
In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist, Dutton says.
In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist, Dutton says.
So when you say it's a socialized health care system, you're not quite telling the whole story.... However, I am fair and wonder what numbers are ran for the numbers below...
QUOTE
The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300.
Where are these numbers coming from? Are these numbers from Medicare (which would be a true comparison) or is it the overall total? The point is, no one has cited where these numbers come from... Yeah, I'm kinda a numbers nerd if you can't tell....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving on, check out this site... http://balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm ... sort of a pro/con of universal health care....
Here's also what the French think of the UK health care system...
http://ambafrance-us.org/IMG/pdf_Universal...Sustainable.pdf
QUOTE
French policymakers typically view their NHI system as a realistic compromise between Britain’s National Health Service, which they believe requires too much rationing and offers insufficient choice
Which is the same I'm advocating! It goes on to say...
QUOTE
The People in France, compared to those in other countries, are in good health and are quite satisfied with their health care. Nonetheless, in response to its rising health care expenditures, France, like other developed countries, is attempting to change its health care system.
Well, they may like it, but they can't afford it! It goes on to say...
QUOTE
The fundamental problem in France was that the growth in health care expenditures persistently surpassed the growth of the economy. Consequently payrolls were increasingly unable to provide the monies required to pay for the health care consumed. By 2004, payroll levies accounted for only 62% of the general regime’s receipts. Since 1991, a supplemental income tax, the “general social contribution,”
More on that ranking system...
QUOTE
In its 2000 Annual Report, the World Health Organization declared that France had the best health care system in the world. This was a surprise to French specialists on the health care system
Anyways, the article is actually a good read and advocates both sides of the issues....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Mike: This one is from 2005, but it provides a far more accurate view on that nation's health care system than the dishonest one you promoted.
Why is your 2005 link (which above you criticized mine b/c of age) more superior than mine, other than the fact it agrees with what you say? Just b/c a view is different then yours does not make it dishonest! I know this is your board and all, but I've noticed that if you don't agree with something, it must be somehow dishonest! Show me where I was dishonest please... But again, if you want to play the tit-for-tat game, this is from 2007 which trumps your 2005 article because it's more recent, and it gives a full history of the system... (see how stupid this can get?)
Going forward, your second source is from the Swedish government! How much more biased of an article can you get? That's like going onto GM's website and it saying everything is hunky-dory! We can play these games all day discrediting each others sources...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html
QUOTE
Global budgeting would prove to have serious consequences for Sweden's health care system, most notably expanding waiting lists. Waiting lists for surgery and other procedures had long been a problem in Sweden. Like most government-run systems, the Swedish health care system was already plagued by declining productivity - a consequence of which included delays in care.
It also goes on to say....
QUOTE
While rationing may permit the government to save on costs and thereby restrain health care budgets, putting patients on waiting lists is not cost-free. One study that examined over 1,400 Swedes on a waiting list for cataract surgery found that 5.2 million kronas were spent on hospital stays and home health care for patients waiting for surgery.
I'm sure you have no problems with rationed health care until it applies to you!
QUOTE
While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system - at least in regards to access - is closer to the third world. Because the health care system is heavily-funded and operated by the government, the system is plagued with waiting lists for surgery. Those waiting lists increase patients' anxiety, pain and risk of death.
Sweden's health care system offers two lessons for the policymakers of the United States. The first is that a single-payer system is not the answer to the problems faced as Americans. Sweden's system does not hold down costs and results in rationing of care. The second lesson is that market-oriented reforms must permit the market to work. Specifically, government should not protect health care providers that fail to provide patients with a quality service from going out of business.
When the United States chooses to reform its health care system, reform should lead to improvement. Reforming along the lines of Sweden would only make our system worse.
Sweden's health care system offers two lessons for the policymakers of the United States. The first is that a single-payer system is not the answer to the problems faced as Americans. Sweden's system does not hold down costs and results in rationing of care. The second lesson is that market-oriented reforms must permit the market to work. Specifically, government should not protect health care providers that fail to provide patients with a quality service from going out of business.
When the United States chooses to reform its health care system, reform should lead to improvement. Reforming along the lines of Sweden would only make our system worse.
QUOTE
Mike: No system is perfect, but single-payer has proven far more effective than private insurance.
I guess it may all come down to this Mike... If you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, would you pack your bags and head to Canada or Europe for treatment? If not, why not? If you think you'd like it, you might want to read this...
http://sandipmadan.blogspot.com/2007/10/fr...l-tourists.html
QUOTE
On the last point one thing stood out: almost everyone I talked with said social security paid French healthcare was satisfactory and adequate, but not outstanding. Many said that if cost was no object then they would prefer to go to the American Hospital of Paris. This is a US managed private hospital that does NOT accept the French social security system of payment or reimbursement, and is a favorite among rich Parisians.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ May 7 2009, 10:49 AM)
And Steve, FDR's efforts to stack the Supreme Court failed — and rightly so. But he was far from being the only president to make the attempt. The shrub successfully shifted the balance of the court system to the hard right,
Yes, FDR was the only president who sought to fundamentally change the Supreme Court's structure to get his policies enacted over an unwilling Congress. The ONLY one to make that attempt.
President Bush replaced two conservative justices with two conservative justices (John Roberts replaced Rehnquist, and Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor). Since he replaced one for one, I am unclear how he "successfully shifted the balance of the court system to the hard right". Would you care to explain what you meant?
QUOTE ("'Mike')
and judges from Bybee to Owens have in fact ruled in violation of the Constitution to support corporations over the citizenry. Bybee is guilty of war crimes, while Owens is a corporate stooge whose rulings in favor of big business have resulted in at least one avoidable death.
Evidently, I must have missed the war crimes trial where Bybee was convicted of anything. I am assuming the fault is mine, I have been a bit busy. Could you provide a link to that article? And since he must have been found guilty in a court of law (as they are the only entity legally qualified and authorized to make a declaration of guilt or innocence), what sentence did the court assess?
From your article:
QUOTE
Another potential problem for a potential criminal prosecution: It might be tough to land convictions. We blogged last month on an LAT article that explored the potential difficulties.
“It would be a real stretch,” George Washington law professor Stephen Saltzburg told the LAT. “They may be bad lawyers who gave extremely bad advice,” but that is not a crime.
“It would be a real stretch,” George Washington law professor Stephen Saltzburg told the LAT. “They may be bad lawyers who gave extremely bad advice,” but that is not a crime.
I looked at your link, and it says that a person died while his case was under review. Assuming that this is the case to which you are referring, and since people die everyday while waiting on a court to make a decision, how does this become "an avoidable death"? I did not see anywhere that she was the sole arbiter in this case. I also fail to see where her decision was the hinge pin of the whole case. I know of Molly Ivins and her aversion for all things factual, so I went looking for additional information and found it. To listen to Molly is to draw the conclusion that it was the decision of Owens that predictated whether the child would die or not - kind of like pulling the plug on the kid. Such was not the case.
QUOTE
Senate Democrats point to a string of other cases in which positions advocated by Owen were questioned by fellow justices on the court. It is not unusual for justices on a nine-member supreme court to disagree on the outcome of cases.
Democrats also cite the outcomes of various cases to suggest that she is not concerned with the plight of ordinary folks.
They note that she authored a decision reversing a $30 million jury award to the family of a 14-year-old boy who became a quadriplegic allegedly because of a seat-belt malfunction during a car accident. She ordered a new trial because the first trial was held in the wrong venue. The decision took a year and a half for the court to issue. The boy died before a new trial could be held.
In response, Owen has said that although she authored the majority decision, she was only one of nine justices working on the case. She said they took about the same amount of time to resolve the case as other cases that year.
Owen supporters say her opinion received bipartisan support among a majority on the Texas high court, and her ruling did not eliminate the ability of the family to sue in the proper county.
Democrats also cite the outcomes of various cases to suggest that she is not concerned with the plight of ordinary folks.
They note that she authored a decision reversing a $30 million jury award to the family of a 14-year-old boy who became a quadriplegic allegedly because of a seat-belt malfunction during a car accident. She ordered a new trial because the first trial was held in the wrong venue. The decision took a year and a half for the court to issue. The boy died before a new trial could be held.
In response, Owen has said that although she authored the majority decision, she was only one of nine justices working on the case. She said they took about the same amount of time to resolve the case as other cases that year.
Owen supporters say her opinion received bipartisan support among a majority on the Texas high court, and her ruling did not eliminate the ability of the family to sue in the proper county.
Source: The Christian Science Monitor
The case was filed by the family's attorney in the wrong venue. To have done anything other than uphold the law (which she did) would have been inexcusable on Owen's part. Put the blame where it is deserved - on the shoulders of the personally injury attorney looking to get rich on his 1/3 share of the $30 million award.
QUOTE
Matthew: I like the idea of a universal healthcare system because it's the best way to guarantee that everyone gets their right to adequate healthcare coverage.
Matthew, your voice has been silent during this debate. I would really like to know where you assert that people have the "right adequate healthcare." My second question is, "what do you consider as adequate?" As I pointed out, the French would much rather go to an American run (privatized) hospital.
The United States is the only country in the developed Western Hemisphere without a Universal/National healthcare plan. This, imho, is an absolute and total disgrace, especially since the USA is the richest country in the world. When people claim that we can't afford a government-funded, government-run Universal Healthcare system, why is it then, that we can afford to continue to rack up our military/defense budget unnecessarily, continue to invade other countries with impunity, lay waste to these countries and their people, and constantly kill or maim not only our own soldiers (men and women alike), but ultimately kill, maim, sicken and displace untold numbers of innocent civilians residing in the countries that we invade? It's all rather hypocritical to me. If we cut our military budget by at least 2/3 to 3/4, we could afford a national healthcare plan in the form of single payment easily.
For all those who're against government-funded, government-run healthcare, here's a suggestion: You might want to go out and rent the film Sicko, which gives an excellent insight on the situation here in the United States and in other countries as well.
For all those who're against government-funded, government-run healthcare, here's a suggestion: You might want to go out and rent the film Sicko, which gives an excellent insight on the situation here in the United States and in other countries as well.
Join in this debate. Conservatives are taking over: Should Americans have equal access to health care? Good or Bad?. – What do you think? http://budurl.com/publichealthcare
QUOTE (Matthew @ Jan 23 2009, 04:12 AM)
There are a number of institutions which are actually federally-owned, state-owned, or county-owned. The United States Post Office is a federally-owned institution. State prisions to be be state-owned institutions. Public schools and county libraries tend to be county-owned if I am not mistaken. All of these institutions are publically-funded as well. Yet I don't know of anyone who would call the Post Office a "socialized postal system" or the prison system as a "socialized prison system", the libraries as a "socialized library system" or the schools as a "socialized education system". If these institutions are not considered forms of socialism, then why would a universal healthcare system, be it insurance or otherwise, be considered a form of socialism? This is something I truly do not get. I can understand the concern about nationalizing industries, worrying that it can lead to a form of "national socialism" and that's not what I want. I just want people to get what they're reasonably entitled to.
Matthew
Matthew
First of all, the post office is a socialized system, because it's run by the feds (not working so well). The prison systems for the most most part are run by the states. Libraries, police forces, and fire deparments are run locally. The Constitution provides for this. The educational system is now mostly a federal project and costs are out of control. Guess who introduced the federal government into the schools - Thanks JIMMY CARTER - he worked out well, didn't he? If you don't get it, read the Constitution and anything they don't provide for should be left up to the states and/or the people (that would be you and me). Also look up the polices that Carter and FDR instituted. See if you agree with them. If you're like me, you'll agree that I am a responsible person and can take care of myself so leave me alone. No one is entitled to anything just for the sake of being born.
The sentence that gave you away was "I just want people to get what they're reasonably ENTITLED to! The people - you and me- are not entitled to any of this! Maybe I feel I'm reasonably entitled to a free heart transplant or a free 47 inch plasma TV. We are entitled to PURSUE greatness, happiness, wealth, etc, but we are certainly not ENTITLED to it.
QUOTE (mapl @ Sep 21 2009, 02:31 PM)
The United States is the only country in the developed Western Hemisphere without a Universal/National healthcare plan. This, imho, is an absolute and total disgrace, especially since the USA is the richest country in the world. When people claim that we can't afford a government-funded, government-run Universal Healthcare system, why is it then, that we can afford to continue to rack up our military/defense budget unnecessarily, continue to invade other countries with impunity, lay waste to these countries and their people, and constantly kill or maim not only our own soldiers (men and women alike), but ultimately kill, maim, sicken and displace untold numbers of innocent civilians residing in the countries that we invade? It's all rather hypocritical to me. If we cut our military budget by at least 2/3 to 3/4, we could afford a national healthcare plan in the form of single payment easily.
For all those who're against government-funded, government-run healthcare, here's a suggestion: You might want to go out and rent the film Sicko, which gives an excellent insight on the situation here in the United States and in other countries as well.
For all those who're against government-funded, government-run healthcare, here's a suggestion: You might want to go out and rent the film Sicko, which gives an excellent insight on the situation here in the United States and in other countries as well.
It doesn't matter whether we could or could not afford a government health care system. Also, single payment - please explain what the means to you. Please answer me this, and not sarcastically - why should the government be responsible for your health care? I would also respectfully ask you to elaborate on the countries we have "invaded and layed waste" to. If you would like to cut our military budget to fund health care - okay. It would work. Where will you hide when Iran drops the bomb?
Someone mentioned that the private health care system couldn't compete against the government because the government doesn't need to turn a profit. If that is true, then how is UPS, FedEx and DHL doing good business while the USPO is struggling? Also the reason the Postal OFfice is struggling is because of email, online billing and the Internet. People are sending less and less mail which is why the Postal Office is marketing their package delivery services over stamped mail. They're competing against FedEx and UPS but the Postal Office was built around letters and FedEx and UPS were built around shipping packages. The Postal Office needs to downsize and change it's overall business plan so it's similar to UPS and FedEx. There's a reason the Post Office is going bankrupt and it's not because the government is bad at business, it's because the business model is antiquated and need to change.
QUOTE
Vega: Someone mentioned that the private health care system couldn't compete against the government because the government doesn't need to turn a profit. If that is true, then how is UPS, FedEx and DHL doing good business while the USPO is struggling?
You are comparing apples to oranges. If this administration should decide to target the private shipping sector, as they are doing to the private insurance, banking, health, auto, (take your pick)... then this would be a fair comparison. Fortunately for the private shipping sector, they do not represent a sufficient sizable portion of the US economy to make themselves a priority target for this administration. The USPS is centered on personal mail delivery while UPS, FedEx and DHL business models targets B2B with some personal mail as you previously stated. However, the most important difference b/w the health system and the postal system is that the government is not actively trying to compete with these services... yet. Not many companies can stand to be so unprofitable as the USPS with losses in the last 13 consecutive Fiscal Years. Losses have skyrocketed from $74M in 1997 up to $438M in 2008 and a whopping $642M in 2009. I doubt that UPS, FedEx and DHL combined would have the capital or resources to withstand such an astronomical series of increasing losses with with no end in sight. In fact the GAO agrees with you that business model is “not viable” in a report where it states that in the next decade, the USPS projects a $238B loss. But when the USPS has the unlimited capital of the US Taxpayer, how effectively do you think these other shipping companies could compete against USPS?
QUOTE
Vega: There's a reason the Post Office is going bankrupt and it's not because the government is bad at business, it's because the business model is antiquated and need to change.
You are correct that the USPS is antiquated, but incorrect when you say it is not a bad business. The reason it is antiquated is that is run by the government. Congress sets the rate, policies and procedures. Bureaucracy creates and maintains an inefficient system that is unresponsive to public demand or expectation. Clients are willing to pay UPS, FedEX, and DHL b/c they provide superior service. The service is superior b/c it provides the dependability necessary for the business sector that the USPS simply cannot provide. These companies are able to increase revenue by increasing rates whereas the USPS has to rely on lowering services, which in turn lowers customer satisfaction and makes them even more unprofitable. Should this administration decide to target this industry with similar tactics as used with the above mentioned sectors, I would expect they start with legislating rates regardless of costs and mandating services such as demanding these companies deliver to zones that have been deemed commercially unprofitable.
QUOTE (CJT @ May 31 2010, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE
Vega: Someone mentioned that the private health care system couldn't compete against the government because the government doesn't need to turn a profit. If that is true, then how is UPS, FedEx and DHL doing good business while the USPO is struggling?
QUOTE
Vega: There's a reason the Post Office is going bankrupt and it's not because the government is bad at business, it's because the business model is antiquated and need to change.
Well said, CJT! You both correct that the USPS is antiquated and it should be changed. The world of Benjamin Franklin - the one who was most instrumental in developing our postal system - has changed, and the business model of the USPS has not kept up with these changes.
Vega, you are wrong. The Post Office has absolutely no fear of ever going bankrupt BECAUSE it is subsidized by the government. The USPS is running at a deficeit BECAUSE the government is running it. The government is no good at running businesses. It is not their function.
From the Cato Institute:
QUOTE
The USPS and the Constitution
In a Washington Post article on the U.S. Postal Service’s continuing problems, Ed O’Keefe calls the USPS “a quasi-government agency enshrined in the Constitution but required by law to act like a business.”
But there is no “quasi” about it: the USPS is a government agency. It may be different than the standard government agency because it operates like a business, but it’s Uncle Sam’s business.
O’Keefe says that the USPS is “enshrined in the Constitution.” It’s true that Article 1, Section 8 says:
[The Congress shall have the power] to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.
Thus, the Constitution allows the government to get involved in postal services, but that doesn’t mean that it has to. If a better alternative came along, then Congress could kill the USPS completely if it wanted. Indeed, a better alternative has come along in the way of more efficient privatized post offices in some European countries.
In addition, the government monopoly over mail was not enshrined in the Constitution. In a 1996 Cato book, “The Last Monopoly,” James I. Campbell writes the following in a chapter on the history of postal monopoly law:
The U.S. Constitution, in 1789, authorized Congress to establish “Post Offices and post Roads” but, unlike the Articles of Confederation, did not explicitly establish an exclusive monopoly. The first substantive postal law, enacted in 1792, listed post roads to be established, reflecting the traditional concept of postal service as a long-distance transport. It authorized the Postmaster General to enter into contracts for the carriage of “letters, newspapers, and packets” but limited the postal monopoly to “letter or letters, packet or packets, other than newspapers.”
Today’s 600,000 employee behemoth that delivers mail to every home in the country six days a week reflects the USPS’s evolution as a government entity. It does not reflect some cherished institution dreamed up by the Founding Fathers. According to Campbell, the Post Office “first began delivery of mail to a small portion of the U.S. population” in 1863:
Until the Postal Act of 1863, the Post Office remained essentially a contracting office for intercity transportation services. In fiscal 1862, costs of intercity and foreign transportation constituted 63 percent of all expenses. Before 1863, intercity letters were either held at the destination post office for collection or delivered by a “letter carrier” who acted as independent contractor and charged the addressee two cents, one of which went to the Post Office.
Then there’s the issue of intracity mail delivery:
A person could drop letters at a post for delivery by a letter carrier within the same city, but that was a secondary service as far as the Post Office was concerned; even after the 1863 act, such “drop letters” were considered “not transmitted in the mails of the United States.”
Delivery of local, intracity letters was pioneered by private companies such as Boyd’s Despatch in New York City and Blood’s Despatch in Philadelphia. One authority counted 147 private local postal companies. The “locals” introduced adhesive postage stamps at least as early as 1841. The Post Office did not introduce stamps until 1847 and did not require their use until 1851. Efforts by the Post Office to suppress the locals failed when, in 1860, a federal court ruled that the postal monopoly pertained only to the transportation of letters over “post roads” between post offices and did not prohibit the delivery of letters within a single postal district.
The Postal Code of 1872 extended the postal monopoly to the delivery of local letters, banning intracity private carries.
In arguing against ending the government’s mail monopoly, proponents occasionally romanticize it as a special American institution that has been with us since the nation’s founding. But the giant postal monopoly of today bears little resemblance to the limited postal service of history. And that’s not because horses have been replaced with little white trucks.
In a Washington Post article on the U.S. Postal Service’s continuing problems, Ed O’Keefe calls the USPS “a quasi-government agency enshrined in the Constitution but required by law to act like a business.”
But there is no “quasi” about it: the USPS is a government agency. It may be different than the standard government agency because it operates like a business, but it’s Uncle Sam’s business.
O’Keefe says that the USPS is “enshrined in the Constitution.” It’s true that Article 1, Section 8 says:
[The Congress shall have the power] to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.
Thus, the Constitution allows the government to get involved in postal services, but that doesn’t mean that it has to. If a better alternative came along, then Congress could kill the USPS completely if it wanted. Indeed, a better alternative has come along in the way of more efficient privatized post offices in some European countries.
In addition, the government monopoly over mail was not enshrined in the Constitution. In a 1996 Cato book, “The Last Monopoly,” James I. Campbell writes the following in a chapter on the history of postal monopoly law:
The U.S. Constitution, in 1789, authorized Congress to establish “Post Offices and post Roads” but, unlike the Articles of Confederation, did not explicitly establish an exclusive monopoly. The first substantive postal law, enacted in 1792, listed post roads to be established, reflecting the traditional concept of postal service as a long-distance transport. It authorized the Postmaster General to enter into contracts for the carriage of “letters, newspapers, and packets” but limited the postal monopoly to “letter or letters, packet or packets, other than newspapers.”
Today’s 600,000 employee behemoth that delivers mail to every home in the country six days a week reflects the USPS’s evolution as a government entity. It does not reflect some cherished institution dreamed up by the Founding Fathers. According to Campbell, the Post Office “first began delivery of mail to a small portion of the U.S. population” in 1863:
Until the Postal Act of 1863, the Post Office remained essentially a contracting office for intercity transportation services. In fiscal 1862, costs of intercity and foreign transportation constituted 63 percent of all expenses. Before 1863, intercity letters were either held at the destination post office for collection or delivered by a “letter carrier” who acted as independent contractor and charged the addressee two cents, one of which went to the Post Office.
Then there’s the issue of intracity mail delivery:
A person could drop letters at a post for delivery by a letter carrier within the same city, but that was a secondary service as far as the Post Office was concerned; even after the 1863 act, such “drop letters” were considered “not transmitted in the mails of the United States.”
Delivery of local, intracity letters was pioneered by private companies such as Boyd’s Despatch in New York City and Blood’s Despatch in Philadelphia. One authority counted 147 private local postal companies. The “locals” introduced adhesive postage stamps at least as early as 1841. The Post Office did not introduce stamps until 1847 and did not require their use until 1851. Efforts by the Post Office to suppress the locals failed when, in 1860, a federal court ruled that the postal monopoly pertained only to the transportation of letters over “post roads” between post offices and did not prohibit the delivery of letters within a single postal district.
The Postal Code of 1872 extended the postal monopoly to the delivery of local letters, banning intracity private carries.
In arguing against ending the government’s mail monopoly, proponents occasionally romanticize it as a special American institution that has been with us since the nation’s founding. But the giant postal monopoly of today bears little resemblance to the limited postal service of history. And that’s not because horses have been replaced with little white trucks.
QUOTE
Thus, the Constitution allows the government to get involved in postal services, but that doesn’t mean that it has to.
I have yet to see where, in the enumerated powers, Congress has any business meddling in healthcare... Especially since these were the specific powers granted upon them...
QUOTE (CJT @ Jun 2 2010, 06:16 AM)
QUOTE
Thus, the Constitution allows the government to get involved in postal services, but that doesn’t mean that it has to.
I have yet to see where, in the enumerated powers, Congress has any business meddling in healthcare... Especially since these were the specific powers granted upon them...
You just aren't looking hard enough. I bet you couldn't find the Constitutional Right to an Abortion, either!
QUOTE (CJT @ May 31 2010, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE
Vega: Someone mentioned that the private health care system couldn't compete against the government because the government doesn't need to turn a profit. If that is true, then how is UPS, FedEx and DHL doing good business while the USPO is struggling?
You are comparing apples to oranges. If this administration should decide to target the private shipping sector, as they are doing to the private insurance, banking, health, auto, (take your pick)... then this would be a fair comparison. Fortunately for the private shipping sector, they do not represent a sufficient sizable portion of the US economy to make themselves a priority target for this administration. The USPS is centered on personal mail delivery while UPS, FedEx and DHL business models targets B2B with some personal mail as you previously stated. However, the most important difference b/w the health system and the postal system is that the government is not actively trying to compete with these services... yet. Not many companies can stand to be so unprofitable as the USPS with losses in the last 13 consecutive Fiscal Years. Losses have skyrocketed from $74M in 1997 up to $438M in 2008 and a whopping $642M in 2009. I doubt that UPS, FedEx and DHL combined would have the capital or resources to withstand such an astronomical series of increasing losses with with no end in sight. In fact the GAO agrees with you that business model is “not viable” in a report where it states that in the next decade, the USPS projects a $238B loss. But when the USPS has the unlimited capital of the US Taxpayer, how effectively do you think these other shipping companies could compete against USPS?
QUOTE
Vega: There's a reason the Post Office is going bankrupt and it's not because the government is bad at business, it's because the business model is antiquated and need to change.
You are correct that the USPS is antiquated, but incorrect when you say it is not a bad business. The reason it is antiquated is that is run by the government. Congress sets the rate, policies and procedures. Bureaucracy creates and maintains an inefficient system that is unresponsive to public demand or expectation. Clients are willing to pay UPS, FedEX, and DHL b/c they provide superior service. The service is superior b/c it provides the dependability necessary for the business sector that the USPS simply cannot provide. These companies are able to increase revenue by increasing rates whereas the USPS has to rely on lowering services, which in turn lowers customer satisfaction and makes them even more unprofitable. Should this administration decide to target this industry with similar tactics as used with the above mentioned sectors, I would expect they start with legislating rates regardless of costs and mandating services such as demanding these companies deliver to zones that have been deemed commercially unprofitable.
QUOTE
The reason it is antiquated is that is run by the government.
Lie. The reason for the United States Postal Service being "antiquated" or not has nothing whatsoever to do with who runs it. You know this for a fact. A company that still uses paper-based or analog communication exclusively can be said to be antiquated. For example, if it has no web site (most companies do these days), then it can be said to lag behind. The U.S.P.S. may be in antiquated in terms of technology, or lack thereof, but simply being run by the government as opposed to a profit-driven private entity. Why you think you can get away with such a bald-faced lie is beyond my comprehension. Again you demonstrate your utter contempt for the people you address.
QUOTE (SteveT @ Jun 1 2010, 12:31 PM)
Vega, you are wrong. The Post Office has absolutely no fear of ever going bankrupt BECAUSE it is subsidized by the government. The USPS is running at a deficeit BECAUSE the government is running it. The government is no good at running businesses. It is not their function.
No, YOU are wrong because you refuse to admit that as a government entity the United States Postal Service is not supposed to be concerned with turning a profit. Its concern is with providing a service to the public. Yes, it would be better if it didn't lose money, but that is not the point. The point is to provide a public service in competition with private, profit-driven organizations so that they keep their prices low and their services high. If there was no public postal service, I am pretty certain that the cost of mailing things would go up dramatically because there is no profit in keeping prices low in an environment in which there is no incentive to keep them that way.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Jun 10 2010, 11:29 AM)
QUOTE (SteveT @ Jun 1 2010, 12:31 PM)
Vega, you are wrong. The Post Office has absolutely no fear of ever going bankrupt BECAUSE it is subsidized by the government. The USPS is running at a deficeit BECAUSE the government is running it. The government is no good at running businesses. It is not their function.
No, YOU are wrong because you refuse to admit that as a government entity the United States Postal Service is not supposed to be concerned with turning a profit. Its concern is with providing a service to the public. Yes, it would be better if it didn't lose money, but that is not the point. The point is to provide a public service in competition with private, profit-driven organizations so that they keep their prices low and their services high. If there was no public postal service, I am pretty certain that the cost of mailing things would go up dramatically because there is no profit in keeping prices low in an environment in which there is no incentive to keep them that way.
That's what I like about you, Mike. You are completely unafraid of charging into a subject without feeling the need to understand what has been said prior to your arrival. I know, some people call that being clueless, but I see it as a rare form of courage.
Whether the Post Office is required to make a profit is not the issue - that fact they do not make a profit is a symptom and a result of their being a government run entity. I readily admit that government run entities rarely if ever turn a profit. The fees they collect are meant to offset the amount subsidized by the government. Now, would you like to argue that water is wet?
Its mandate to provide service is also not the point of the thread, and once again you are vigorously defending against an argument no one has offered.
And has been stated before, the USPS' target market is private mail - a market that is steadily shrinking. FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. focus on the business world - with select services offered to the private sector at an increased rate over the USPS. These carriers are able to charge considerably more for their services (vs USPS) because of their service.
Now, like the Alice's Dormouse, its appears that it is time for you to go back to sleep for the next three weeks.
QUOTE
That's what I like about you, Mike. You are completely unafraid of charging into a subject without feeling the need to understand what has been said prior to your arrival.
You just described yourself, liar-boy. But never let it be said that you're one to pass up the opportunity to attribute to others what YOU are guilty of.
QUOTE
Whether the Post Office is required to make a profit is not the issue
No, that is the entire issue. By its very nature, a privately-owned business has only one goal: to generate profits. Government, on the other hand, is supposed to provide services. The profit motive is what separates government from private enterprises. It is perfectly normal for a private business to be concerned with profit, as without it the owner(s) cannot make their living and enjoy the fruits of their
QUOTE
QUOTE
That's what I like about you, Mike. You are completely unafraid of charging into a subject without feeling the need to understand what has been said prior to your arrival.
(snip the silly little "I know you are but what am I" response)
QUOTE
Whether the Post Office is required to make a profit is not the issue
QUOTE
No, that is the entire issue. By its very nature, a privately-owned business has only one goal: to generate profits. Government, on the other hand, is supposed to provide services. The profit motive is what separates government from private enterprises. It is perfectly normal for a private business to be concerned with profit, as without it the owner(s) cannot make their living and enjoy the fruits of their selling things to (looting?) the public. It is also perfectly normal for a government-run corporation to operate at a loss, since the profit-motive is at worst secondary and at best nonexistent. But again, you knew this for a fact already.
Of course I already knew that. No one is arguing that point. It is only peripherally related to the whole thread!
Nevertheless, you have done an excellent job of proving your point, as totally unrelated to the subject as it might be. And water IS wet.
QUOTE
Name Caller: Lie.
Do you ever get tired of saying that word, or is your vocabulary really that limited?
QUOTE
Name Caller: The reason for the United States Postal Service being "antiquated" or not has nothing whatsoever to do with who runs it.
Are you kidding? Any business model, be it a postal service or a lemonade stand... has EVERYTHING to do with who runs it. Should I call you a liar now? For example, why would you have Oprah Winfrey run Nike? The model on which a business works is precisely dependent on who is running the company. If it weren't, then a monkey could run Apple just as profitably as Steve Jobs.
QUOTE
Name Caller: You know this for a fact.
The obvious fact that you DON'T know this leads me to believe that you don't understand what your talking about... which is believable since your only come back to any argument is "liar." Either way, it's apparent that business school would not suit you...
QUOTE
Name Caller: The U.S.P.S. may be in antiquated in terms of technology, or lack thereof, but simply being run by the government as opposed to a profit-driven private entity.
Who is arguing this point? Have you read the posts above or can you just not comprehend it? We were talking about the business model being antiquated, not the technology!
Hey Mike, if Canada's healthcare system is so superior (as you have asserted) than ours... Why did Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams undergo heart surgery in the US? It's obvious that they don't have that type of surgery in his province, but why come to the US when he could've gone anywhere in the world to have it done?
QUOTE (CJT @ Jun 10 2010, 06:32 PM)
Hey Mike, if Canada's healthcare system is so superior (as you have asserted) than ours... Why did Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams undergo heart surgery in the US? It's obvious that they don't have that type of surgery in his province, but why come to the US when he could've gone anywhere in the world to have it done?
Better mail service?
QUOTE (CJT @ Jun 10 2010, 04:32 PM)
Hey Mike, if Canada's healthcare system is so superior (as you have asserted) than ours... Why did Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams undergo heart surgery in the US? It's obvious that they don't have that type of surgery in his province, but why come to the US when he could've gone anywhere in the world to have it done?
Because the Florida surgeon who performed the operation happens to a very good specialist in the specific procedure he had done, according to this video.
Also know that in Canada there is no homogeneous system for health care; each province is responsible for its own system.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3030569
QUOTE
“My arteries are clear. It was a valve issue for me. Mine was leaking and the seeping went from moderate to severe all of a sudden. It’s fixed so I can drink and eat all the wrong things,” he says, devouring a particularly large onion ring. “Pass the salt, please.”
Danny Williams has made a career out of breaking every rule in the book, least among them, dietary protocols.
Far from facing any backlash at home for opting for non-invasive experimental surgery in Florida over a chest-cracking procedure in Toronto, the man who has been Newfoundland and Labrador’s premier since 2003 has instead soared to a level of personal popularity never before experienced by mere mortals in provincial politics. One poll this spring gave him 93% voter approval as he lords over a legislature where his Progressive Conservative’s 43 seats dominate a combined opposition just one-tenth the size.
“I saw some of the health care reaction on American TV, but I didn’t give a s--t because I didn’t get into public life to give up options that I would’ve had in private life,” he says. “It’s my heart, my health, my choice and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that too.”
Danny Williams has made a career out of breaking every rule in the book, least among them, dietary protocols.
Far from facing any backlash at home for opting for non-invasive experimental surgery in Florida over a chest-cracking procedure in Toronto, the man who has been Newfoundland and Labrador’s premier since 2003 has instead soared to a level of personal popularity never before experienced by mere mortals in provincial politics. One poll this spring gave him 93% voter approval as he lords over a legislature where his Progressive Conservative’s 43 seats dominate a combined opposition just one-tenth the size.
“I saw some of the health care reaction on American TV, but I didn’t give a s--t because I didn’t get into public life to give up options that I would’ve had in private life,” he says. “It’s my heart, my health, my choice and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that too.”
Believe it or not, it's not the quality of the doctors that's at issue in health care. It's how health care is paid for. If Danny Williams had been an American citizen of lesser means than he is (he is a multimillionaire according to the article) he would probably be dead.
He had to come to the US because the Health System in Canada has failed to produce doctors of the caliber that Williams wanted to work on his heart.
It is the dis-incentives inherent in the Canadian Heath Care system - the same ones written into Obama Care - that is the reason for this dearth of highly specialized physicians in Canada. And if and when the Obama Care monstrocity is implemented, our future will look remarkably like the Canadian's present.
With his resources, Williams was able to go to where good health care was available. If Obama Care is adopted, that option for future health care seekers will be closed. Where do they go then? Cuba? Despite his praise for the system, you don't see Michael Moore jetting to Havana to get treatment. The man is not a total idiot!
He had to come to the US because the Health System in Canada has failed to produce doctors of the caliber that Williams wanted to work on his heart.
It is the dis-incentives inherent in the Canadian Heath Care system - the same ones written into Obama Care - that is the reason for this dearth of highly specialized physicians in Canada. And if and when the Obama Care monstrocity is implemented, our future will look remarkably like the Canadian's present.
With his resources, Williams was able to go to where good health care was available. If Obama Care is adopted, that option for future health care seekers will be closed. Where do they go then? Cuba? Despite his praise for the system, you don't see Michael Moore jetting to Havana to get treatment. The man is not a total idiot!
It is the dis-incentives inherent in the Canadian Heath Care system - the same ones written into Obama Care - that is the reason for this dearth of highly specialized physicians in Canada. And if and when the Obama Care monstrocity is implemented, our future will look remarkably like the Canadian's present.
With his resources, Williams was able to go to where good health care was available. If Obama Care is adopted, that option for future health care seekers will be closed. Where do they go then? Cuba? Despite his praise for the system, you don't see Michael Moore jetting to Havana to get treatment. The man is not a total idiot!
He had to come to the US because the Health System in Canada has failed to produce doctors of the caliber that Williams wanted to work on his heart.
It is the dis-incentives inherent in the Canadian Heath Care system - the same ones written into Obama Care - that is the reason for this dearth of highly specialized physicians in Canada. And if and when the Obama Care monstrocity is implemented, our future will look remarkably like the Canadian's present.
With his resources, Williams was able to go to where good health care was available. If Obama Care is adopted, that option for future health care seekers will be closed. Where do they go then? Cuba? Despite his praise for the system, you don't see Michael Moore jetting to Havana to get treatment. The man is not a total idiot!
QUOTE
He had to come to the US because the Health System in Canada has failed to produce doctors of the caliber that Williams wanted to work on his heart.
How do you equate the way healthcare is paid for in Canada with the quality of the doctors. The article I posted states that the procedure Williams had is experimental, and that the doctor who performs it does it almost exclusively.
QUOTE
It is the dis-incentives inherent in the Canadian Heath Care system
What would those be?
QUOTE
the same ones written into Obama Care
Obamacare merely institutionalizes the existing system we have, to use Mike's term for it. The only thing it does is punish people who are too poor to afford private insurance by taking money from them in the form of tax penalties. And the Medicaid expansion is suspect because Medicaid is paid for largely at the state level so it is up to the states if Medicaid is expanded in them.
You might ask Mike to answer those questions for you - since you accept nothing as truth from anyone else. My recommendation is to have Mike turn the fingers of his hand currently wearing the sock directly towards his face so you can read his lips. 
So since you already knew what the issue was and what the difference is between a government entity and a private business, that is an admission that you have been lying again. You tried to equate two unlike things as "proof" that they are like when you knew for a fact that they aren't.
Geez, you're pathetic.
Geez, you're pathetic.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Jun 13 2010, 09:43 AM)
So since you already knew what the issue was and what the difference is between a government entity and a private business, that is an admission that you have been lying again. You tried to equate two unlike things as "proof" that they are like when you knew for a fact that they aren't.
Geez, you're pathetic.
Geez, you're pathetic.
What does this have to do with anything written in this thread? What are you talking about? Are you even on the right thread? And to whom are you addressing these nonsensical remarks?
What are you calling a lie this time? Why is it a lie? Even your accusation makes no sense.
Two things can be both similar and dissimilar at the same time - depending on what you are trying to illustrate. If you use a train and a horse, they are similar if compared as transportation, but dissimilar if compared to the elements of which they are constructed.
Just because they can be both similar and dissimilar at the same time does not make it a lie.
Explain what you are trying to say.
QUOTE
What does this have to do with anything written in this thread?
Everything, liar-boy.
QUOTE
What are you talking about?
Don't ask questions you already know the answer to.
QUOTE
Are you even on the right thread?
Yes.
QUOTE
And to whom are you addressing these nonsensical remarks?
YOU, liar-boy Steve. You knew that to begin with. Once again you play at being stupid. Well, to be fair, you're probably not playing at being stupid — you probably are just another right-wing imbecile.
QUOTE
Two things can be both similar and dissimilar at the same time - depending on what you are trying to illustrate. If you use a train and a horse, they are similar if compared as transportation, but dissimilar if compared to the elements of which they are constructed.
Just because they can be both similar and dissimilar at the same time does not make it a lie.
Explain what you are trying to say.
Just because they can be both similar and dissimilar at the same time does not make it a lie.
Explain what you are trying to say.
WRONG AGAIN. You were the one that tried to blur the lines between a government-run agency, which has no profit-motive, and a private corporation, which is all about the profit-motive, and in so doing tried to make a false case about government being inherently inefficient. But knowing, by your own admission, the difference between a public and a private organization and the dissimilar goals, you deliberately attempted to deceive anyone reading this thread.
Your futile attempts to lie your way out of having made a bad and dishonest argument are laughable.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.