Universal Health Care would cost something like $3000 per capita per year. The cost of existing plans would no longer be necessary . Only the insurance companies would lose. Would you vote for it?

Comments

• M.

  • Report
  

  by Muff on March 3rd, 2007

• Whilst that is our wish and "topic of prayer," unfortunately, the US is not a socialist country and we have massive infrastructure/policy problems due to inept people running our gov't.

  • Report
  

  by Ruffy on March 3rd, 2007

• Oh...amongst other things...this country is too big - we should just propose an idea that splits this country into smaller parts.... much easier to govern. :)

  • Report
  

  by Ruffy on March 3rd, 2007

• here, you deserve 2 extra points from me, mr. electricity man. :)

  • Report
  

  by Ruffy on March 3rd, 2007

Comments

Comments

• Many companies would offer Above & Beyond, but probably in areas not currently covered anyway, like Long Term Care, or Dental. Your Q. about your wife is a major obstacle and that's why insurance companies lobby to prevent UMC. But, of course, they're not worried about wifey, but rather their profits and huge executive salaries. Your answer makes important points. You are right to ask about the finer points but keep your mind open. Stronghart.

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on February 9th, 2007

Comments

• Existing plans would no longer be needed. Most cost far more than $3000 per capita. A benefit fund with which I am very familiar covers 400,000 beneficiaries at an average cost of $3500. Our administrative cost is less than 6%. The plan is fairly generous and has no copays. In addition we cover prescriptions--without copays--and we have no limits. 93 cents out of every dollar go to benefits, not to administration. Most insurance plans cost between 11% and 20% to administer.We think that the gov't could do even better. Nothing would stop those who wish to add on a secondary plan from doing so. Remember to subtract the costs of all existing plans when you consider the cost of this one. I give you points for giving thoughtful consideration to your idea. Our 400,000 beneficiaries are a fairly close mirror of the US population. Remember, as long as a plan covers everyone, there will be a large middleground of healthy people who will use little or no coverage. your catastrophe plan is good.

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on February 9th, 2007

• Medicare, by the way, has very low administrative costs. Much better than any insurance company or HMO with which I am familiar. Stronghart

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on February 9th, 2007

• Its not really that I'm concerned about. First of all Americans hate tax raises and this will take a tax raise. Second of all shutting down the healthcare system completly is just going to put a lot of people out of work and I'm not willing to do that. So I think it would be best if we left the private system intact, not necessarily because its more efficent but for jobs and because for some odd reason people would rather pay 4000 dollars a year to a private company then 3000 a year to the government. Also I think we need co-pays and deductables to prevent backlogging the medical system or reducing the money that doctors make. (We need to encourage people to be doctors as much as possible). I don't want to give it to everyone free because if I could see the doc for free whenever I want I'd go there for every minor ache or pain. Lets not go European and hand it all to the government, lets just work with the current system as much as possible.

  • Report
  

  by Valparaiso on February 9th, 2007

• And its just not right for the American government to come in and tell legit companies that we now own them or that they can no longer be in business. No reason to try to make massive changes if they can be avoided.

  • Report
  

  by Valparaiso on February 9th, 2007

• Val: We spend more than twice as much on health care, on average, than the 21 countries in which life expectancy exceeds ours.
  
  Canada's single-payer system, which covers everyone, spends less than 17 % on administrave costs. (we could do better)
  
  Is it so complicated to explain that Universal Health care would reduce costs substantially, because every additional tax dollar would be offset by an even larger reduction in private insurance spending? Given that such a suystem is so much cheaper OVER ALL, calling it unaffordable makes no sense.
  

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on February 25th, 2007

• Strong> And often the people in those countries have to wait long periods of time for their healthcare because people go to the doctor as soon as they get the sniffles. The reason we spend so much money on healthcare is because we are providing it to so many people who can't afford it. There are millions of illegals in this country who are being paid under the table and don't pay taxes yet our hospitals have to treat them. I'm not saying that our hospitals should ignore them but they would be in a lot better shape if we put more effort into border security.

  • Report
  

  by Valparaiso on February 25th, 2007

Comments

• Health care is more important, than, for example, food or shelter?  Do you believe, then, that Big Brother should also provide everyone with ample food, and adequate housing?  The logical extension of this idea of “Universal Health Care” is that it is the responsibility of government to take care of all our needs, rather than our own responsibility to take care of our own needs.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on February 8th, 2007

• Blaylock has been successfully propagandized by the corporate mentality that has swept the country since Regan. A middle class person cannot afford to up to $15,000, per year for medical insurance. Neither can those earning $30K. Of course, I believe that no one should be live in the street or starve in the greatest country in the world. I bet you believe so also. Keep your mind open.

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on February 9th, 2007

• By the way, Nixon favored some sort of medical plan but he was nixed (sorry) by the conservative wing of his party.

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on February 9th, 2007

• Stonghart, I agree with both comments

  • Report
  

  by jin jang on February 9th, 2007

• $15,000 per year!?! Where the heck do you get that from? It looks as if you ahve been successfully propagandized by the socialist lobby. I just checked my financial statement for last year and I can tell you that the difference between my gross and what I actually received does not amount to $15,000. It is not even over $500. Therefore, I , personally, am paying no where near that much for my health insurance plan. My employer may be paying that for my insurance, but I am not. If my employer did not have to pay that much for my insurance, then that would be more money that they would be paying me with which I could shop around for my own health care.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 9th, 2007

• Blaylock: I don't know how much coverage you have. If the cost of your insurance is $500 a year and you have reasonable coverage, then you ahve one of the greatest plans in existance.
  
  If you do have coverage ask your employer what it costs the company. Then find out what your coverage is. You may be unpleasantly surprised when you need it.

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on February 20th, 2007

Comments

• Oh yeah, those poor insurance companies, got to look after them... Your government can afford to toss away 2 trillion on a foreign war, it can afford a decent healthcare system for its own people, you would think? There would, of course, be nothing to stop you continuing to pay insurance to get private treatment outwth the scheme.

  • Report
  

  by DavidHume on February 8th, 2007

• I'm not defending the insurance companies, I'm just suggesting that there has to be an exit strategy in case of failure... but as you mentioned, our president is good at coming up with 'plans' but bad about 'Exit Strategies'.

  • Report
  

  by JAMMco... its complicated... on February 8th, 2007

• Well, I'm as cynical as you about your current president, but we should really be talking about your next one; this one is a dead duck in political terms. I'd like to think that something genuinely good like universal healthcare would unite all sides of the political spectrum, just as you united against terrorism after 9/11. This is as big a threat, and has much greater potential.

  • Report
  

  by DavidHume on February 8th, 2007

• anyone who thinks that the current medical system is a success must not be using it. And what about the 45 million of our fellow citizens who lack coverage?

  • Report
  

  by centrator on February 9th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• The biggest bureaucracies in the United States are those in the insurance who tell you what doctor you can use and how much he will be paid, and which hospital to go to, and how long you can say there. Those bueaucracies are filled with minimum wage personnel who are making decisions on your health care. And those decisions are made on economic grounds not on medical grounds. Is that better than a gov't plan?

  • Report
  

  by centrator on February 9th, 2007

• One operative phrase in your answer is "more than some of us are paying." You left out the the phrase,"paying now." The idea of insurance is to spread the risk. Insurance companies find ways to cherry pick and to disqualify those they have already insured. After all, their goal is profit, not health care. Please open your mind, and think about this through. I assert a cost of $3000 per year because of a plan covering 400,000 beneficiaries.I am very familiar with this plan, as I am a trustee.The plan is fairly generous, and has zero copays. (though I think we should institute small copays) We cover prescriptions. Again, zero copays. Our actual cost per covered life is less than $3800. I believe that economies of scale could lower that figure. The comment by Centrator about bureaucracies is certainly worth thinking about too. The $3800 per covered life includes many lives (beneficiaries) who use little or no services. It also includes a few who have cost more than a million dollars.

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on February 18th, 2007

• So, the entire basis for your figure of $3,000 per person per year is based on an actual private plan that you are involved with costing $3,800 per person per year, coupled with a blind assumption that a government-run program would be approximately 20% more efficent than the plan with which you are involved?  Tell me this:  Can you name one government-run program, for which a privately-run business provides the same or similar service, and where the government program is more efficient?  No, you cannot.  It has never happened.  It will never happen.  Government programs, by their very nature, are wasteful, inefficent, and bureaucratic.  They don't respond at all to the market pressures that even the worse private businesses must take into account.  I say that your assumption that the government could run a program that was nearly as efficient as the one in which you are involved — much less one that is more efficient — is utter nonsense.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on February 18th, 2007