Roberts: Ixnay on public health insurance option, pay or play, provider cost controls

Deserts are dry and frequently hot. Patrons of Oceans of Fun will sometimes get wet and France is in Europe. All of these are as surprising that Pat Roberts will support private "enterprise" at the expense of citizens who need help with their healthcare.

that's funny, because last time i checked the GOP was busy dismantling the notion that ANYTHING works in other countries (rations, cost controls, FEAR, etc.).

roberts doesn't really have a choice now that the dems have indicated they'll go nuclear to get this through in 2009.

I have to laugh at the posters about nationalized healthcare. They must not have any insurance, or they buy in to the lie that costs will go down. This just shows these people are not credible, they want someone else to pay their healthcare costs. Roberts is correct, this hasn't worked anywhere else, and rationing has happened everywhere it has been tried. I look forward to these letters when you have to wait 6 month for a mamogram, or a prostate exam. I have private healthcare, and am happy with it, I suggest you slackers do the same and stop trying to get a free ride! The only upside is if the implement this it assures Democrats will be out of power for the next 30 years. The fallout will be incredible, the only downside is everyone will have to suffer for yet another failed liberal idea!

... all over Europe in Canada and in nations throughout the world and those who say otherwise are just beholden to the money grubbing stakeholders who value profit over people.

Oh really? If it's such a great thing, why did a Canadian friend of mine end up coming HERE for a heart procedure (his daughter lives here) because he didn't know if he could last the 6 MONTHS it would take to get it done up there? Why is it that all my friends who are natives of Canada are up in arms over the possibility of nationalized healthcare?

Doesn't work too hot in Canada, and I doubt it works that well in Europe, either. Obama wants to paint a pretty picture...the media isn't going to allow the "truth" to come out!

Thank you, Sen. Robert. At least someone has the sense to stand up to Obama's insanity. Save America. Please.

It really annoys me when people who know nothing of the healthcare system in Europe claim it works fine. I worked as a consultant in the UK with implementing IT. It was enough for me to realize it may cover everyone, but it is far from desireable. Currently, the UK spends about the same as Walmart generates worldwide for covering less than 60 million people. So looking at 2007, Walmart had $380 Billion in revenue. So, with a little math, here is how the numbers stack up for healthcare that is far inferior quality wise to the current healthcare. I will explain the numbers as well.

$2 Trillion for government healthcare at a minimum, which would probably come close to doubling. This is based on 5 times the size of the UK population, with $380 Billion in Walmart revenues for 2007.

This would probably equate to $7000 per person in the US at a bare minimum. Articles state that around 25% is already paid for with taxes, so add at least $2 Trillion in deficit, or taxes to cover this amount. If anyone thinks the cost for massive overhead won't exceed $2 Trillion, you don't understand the basics of how larger corporations have to spend more money to produce the same product.

While this happens, the quality of the care goes down. I would bet it takes an additional $3 Trillion on top of what is already government spending on Medicare and Medicaid, if not more. This means 30% of the US GDP going to healthcare in a single payer system, waiting lists of months for arthroscopic knee surgery, hours in line at the ER, and decreased pay for healthcare professionals. Will anyone find the end result to be better for the general public than what exists at present. We could cover the uninsured for far less than this cost.

Don't misunderstand, I despise the insurance companies and how they treat healthcare recipients, but I cannot justify the cost increase for a single payer system.

Let's look at minimums:
Roughly 125 million workers and $1.5 Trillion in new taxes. This is below what I think would exist, but I am trying to prove that the best case scenario is bad. This means $12,000 in new taxes per person, in exchange for lower quality care and a savings in the range of $2k to $4k per year per person. The cost and ROI just don't make any sense.

The current system is not good, but a single payer system would make this dramatically worse.

Sorry, I have corrected a small error in this paragraph:

Let's look at minimums:
Roughly 125 million workers and $1.5 Trillion in new taxes. This is below what I think would exist, but I am trying to prove that the best case scenario is bad. This means $12,000 in new taxes per worker, in exchange for lower quality care and a savings in the range of $2k to $4k per year per person. The cost and ROI just don't make any sense.

Our good friend Robbed doesn't seem to want to cite the relevant figures on the costs for health care.

Go here comparing some numbers for the US (average life expectancy 78.1) and the UK (average life expectancy 79).

The US spends 15.3% of its GDP on health care.

The UK spends 8.3% of its GDP on health care.

And, let's not forget that in the US 45 million Americans have no health insurance and 60% of all bankruptcies have something to do with health care costs.

Everyone opposed to single payer and especially those of you opposed to any health care reform, how much do you pay for your health insurance? How much is a family plan?

What's your deductible?

How much do you have to pay out of pocket before your insurance kicks in?

How much do you pay for prescriptions?

Add all this up and tell us you still favor no change to the current health care system.

I'll wait . . .

But first I have to run up to CVS and pick up my $50 prescription.

Between my employer contribution and mine, I pay about $6500 per year to cover 5 people.
Can a single payer health plan cover that?
And if so, where is the money going to come from, and will my level of care remain the same?
I pay a $26 dollar co-pay and it covers me for chiropractor visits for the entire year.
I can pay a $20 co-pay and have my 6 year old daughter seen at Childrens Mercy in less than 3 weeks. I am covered for an annual eye checkup once a year for all of the people on my plan. There is more, but you get the idea.

The complete over-haul of the Health care Industry is not being done with you in mind. If you are happy with your current plan, then you keep it.

This is supposed to address the fact that more than 45,000,000 people in this country do not have health insurance and if they go in for health care, they are charged more because they don't carry insurance.

Aside from the 18,000 (approx.) people who die each and every year because they do not have health insurance and are forced into ER's when their situation becomes a catastrophic emergency.

This country's health care started going downhill the moment we introduced disease as some sort of commodity.

It often seems that those who oppose a change to what we have now either:
a) Have great coverage by an employer
b) Are dependent on the govt./va for all their needs
c) Have no idea what the eff they are talking about.

I don't stand to benefit from a new system, but I find it unconscionable that we have ignorant and and paid for Senators like Pat Roberts who are more concerned about the private insurance industry than about the 45,000,000 people in this country with no insurance.

You are adressing me respectfully so I will do the same.
I am not against reform of the health care system. What I am against is my taxes being raised to dramatically to pay for it, and my coverage going down.
I actually am waiting for specifics, but think that Obama's plan may be OK.
One thing that gives me hope is that Howard Dean once stated that single payer health insurance is the end game of what the Democratic Party is trying to impliment, and Obama and Dean don't get along at all.

Craig,

I can respect your position on this. Nobody enjoys being taxed more.

At the root of our economy's woes however, lies the detriment affect that the healthcare system plays on our country's well-being.

Tweaks and band-aids will not change this.

{This is not directed at you personally, but I find the issue of this country's healthcare issue at odds with many pro-life advocates, who value life as cells or fetuses much more important than they do with children born to poor parents without insurance}

That's the good news.

My employer pays my premiums so my only expenses are the out of pocket ones - prescriptions, co-pays for office visits and for tests, etc. Not too bad. I am fortunate.

But I am also approaching retirement and can't even consider it because then I have to pay my own premiums; they are 50% of my retirement pay. My employer can hire two young, fresh out of college workers for what they pay me but I can't afford to retire.

The cost for a family plan from my employer is over $700 a month.

Health care reform makes economic sense.

I also know way too many people without insurance. (Interestingly enough, most are employed.)

The bad news is that single payer is the best system and its chances are not promising. But at least it looks like we are going to get some reform. Baby steps are better than no steps at all.

I disagree about Obama and Dean. They are working together on health care. Rahm doesn't like Howard but Rahm doesn't like many people. No big surprise there.

This if going to be a little longwinded so bear with me.
Hell, I even have a way to partiall pay for some reform.
Over half of the hospitals in America are designated as "charity hosptials" and are given tax exempt status for that designation.
But, if I go in for a procedure, say broken arm, I pay my co-pay and my insurance is charged a set amount, but if someone without insurance goes in for that some broken arm they are charged sometimes 3 times that amount. I am not necissarily against that, it is capitalism, but if the hospital does that then their "charitable" status should be taken away.
It is a little more complicated than that, but you get the idea.
(BTW, I don't have links to back that up, heard it on Clark Howard a few years ago, and he is very reliable when it comes to things like this).

1. You didn't answer the question of my taxes going up dramatically.
2. You stated "The bad news is that single payer is the best system and its chances are not promising" I completely disagree. Single payer is anything but the best system, and the fact that the chances are slim is a good thing.
3. I agree about Rahm, except the fact that I respect him as a person, just not a politician, and I strangely think that I would probably get along with him personally if I knew him.

In many states, HMO's designate themselves as "non-profits".

It is a bit misleading because they pay executives multi-million dollar salaries(including healthcare for life, retirement pensions, bonuses, etc.)

They also pay for lobbyists, consultants, dozens of lawyers/law firms, and a multitude of "experts" for court cases when they deny coverage.

In addition, these "non-profits" create Foundations that diverts hundreds of millions of dollars off their books so that they can support politician's pet projects.

Anything, even the Canadian system (not suggesting that this is the best by any stretch of the imagination), is better than what we have.

Most of us will end up saving money.

Joe, I am good with taking away the "non-profit" status of the HMO's who aren't true "non-profits".
Lib soc, under you plan, my taxes go up, but my out of pocket stays the same. So all of the Americans like me, we are screwed.

If you include everyone in a national insurance program that covers everything:
1. Taxes will go up, guaranteed.
2. If you already have an employer benefit health plan, you won't get any benefit for your increase taxes.
3. It won't attack the root problem of cost. It will make it worse, because the problem is that insurance itself drives the costs up. You know this is true, try getting a price for fixing your car with insurance and then mention that you don't actually have insurance = instant discount. Same principle applies to medical care. If somebody else is paying, the price goes up.

By the same token, it isn't right that some people have no coverage at all. Recommend mandatory catastrophic health insurance for everybody and prohibit insurance from covering anything under $1000 per person per year. If the problem is that some can't afford catastrophic protection, I have no problem with Government helping out. As to who provides it, that can be left to capitalism.

This proposal would drive costs down because people would think twice about using doctors and hospitals for minor medical problems if they had to pay out of their pocket. This would then lead to, ahem, competition within the medical sector. Which is why the medical and insurance sectors will fight tooth and nail to ensure this never becomes law. They have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are or getting even more mandatory coverage for every little scratch.

3. It won't attack the root problem of cost. It will make it worse, because the problem is that insurance itself drives the costs up. You know this is true, try getting a price for fixing your car with insurance and then mention that you don't actually have insurance = instant discount. Same principle applies to medical care. If somebody else is paying, the price goes up.
=====================
The only way the insurance industry can profit on the commodity of disease is to deny as much care as possible.

Otherwise, what do they offer and how can they profit?

Do you concur?

You said: "The only way the insurance industry can profit on the commodity of disease is to deny as much care as possible.

Otherwise, what do they offer and how can they profit?

Do you concur?"

Of course denying claims is profitable, but it's immensely more profitable if they can simply collect a lot more $$$ from a lot more people. They can afford to pay individual claims without hurting their bottom line if they can just pass on their costs directly to everyone else. The closer we come to mandatory coverage for every little scratch and sniffle, the better they are able to just pass on their costs. Therefore the cycle of increasing costs will just continue.