High-ranking insurance PR flack defects, explains dirty tricks used to fight universal healthcare

Ross sez, "A high-placed insider (ex VP of PR at Cigna) describes the machinations the insurance industry has used to keep us from getting a decent health care system."

This guy literally wrote the talking-points memo that the anti-universal-health-care crowd uses. He had a conversion experience and has now come clean. Remarkable.

BILL MOYERS: Was [Michael Moore's SICKO] true? Did you think it contained a great truth?
WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely did.
BILL MOYERS: What was it?
WENDELL POTTER: That we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in that movie.
You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom. We have huge numbers of people who are also just a lay-off away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, or being purged by their insurance company, and winding up there.
And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It's more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a plan that you're in now to one that you don't want. You might be in the plan you like now.
But chances are, pretty soon, you're going to be enrolled in one of these high deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined...
WENDELL POTTER: And [Wall Street thinks] that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.

Wendell Potter on Bill Moyers (Thanks, Ross!)

Previously:

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: politics

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

noen

Health insurance troll is busy today. Comparing apples to oranges with a straight face takes a lot of work. He thinks the cost war in the mideast is something easy to get the truth about and that it’s certainly around 144 billion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
tp1024

If nothing else, you do have to admire the quality of American propaganda. I don’t know how they keep pulling it off, but somehow they manage to keep putting the blame of everything that goes wrong on something that has no connection to it whatsoever.

Quite unlike other systems of propaganda it has the advantage that it doesn’t give you a lead to the true cause of the problem.

The main difference is, that it is affirmative, rather than denialist. There is no denial whatsoever about anything that is wrong. This is essential, because a denial in an untenable situation is nothing but a 2nd class admission of guilt.

By not denying anything and projecting the fault on an already established pattern of reasoning that is isolated from the involved institutions, the modern system of propaganda does not offer an immediate alternative explanation. It is even superior to the Orwellian system, because, relying on an established system of reasoning, it avoids being arbitrary. Being not arbitrary puts it in the unique position of having people filling out the gaps themselves, thus outsourcing propaganda and leaving the painstaking process of eliminating contradictions to the public discourse.

Either this is the case or it is indeed true that Americans are too dumb to realize the situation they are in, which is odd, since people in similar situations in the eastern block were at least very aware of the problems of the system.
Padraig

Here we go again.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1179802

The US citizens pay more for less. Universal health care costs less.

It’s not really rocket science.
grimc

John Stossel?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

WSJ Opinion page?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
t3knomanser

Call me anarchistic, but I don’t think the government is qualified to make and enforce laws, let alone provide public services.

//No, the market isn’t either.
Timothy Hutton

PYROS said:

Americans are a sick bunch, especially when compared to their European counterparts. … infant mortality is dramatically higher

No, it isn’t.

It’s measured differently:

Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or fetal deaths). In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada, Japan and the Nordic countries, very premature babies with relatively low odds of survival are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births.[emphasis added]

Source: OECD Factbook 2009

Infant Mortality is defined as:

The infant mortality rate is the number of deaths of children under one year of age expressed per 1 000 live births. Neonatal mortality refers to the death of children under 28 days.

Source: OECD Factbook 2009
Modusoperandi

Takuan “know what’s funny? If you listen to Canadian radio (like CBC) you hear people angrily attacking the government for planning to secretly privatize health care.”
Yes, but they’re SOCIALIST! What next, making America officially bilingual? That sounds like SOCIALISM!
…
Sorry. I had to use allcaps there.
ADavies

I hope Michael Moore sees that transcript. I can’t imagine a higher compliment for him.

Ah, wait, I see he has. Good.
Timothy Hutton

NOEN questioned the total cost of the wars in the middle east… Got a better number?

The current DoD budget (FY2009) is $515.4BN, which includes $70BN towards the wars in the middle east, with additional funds to be allocated as needed.

Source: White House OMB

TIM questioned my math:

So your deranged assumption that ‘supporting’ 50 household’s worth of $5k/pa healthcare would add up to the entire income of such high earners is, well, deranged..

I never made that assumption, you did. You chose to ignore the “on average” in my statement.

Finally, your math appears a bit off – if $400BN represents 20% (or 1/5th) of the income earned by folks reporting $250K/pa or more, that puts their total income at around $2T, not the $8T you calculated (5 x $400BN = $2T)…
Matt Volatile

Why is the American government uniquely incompetent amongst developed nations, T3K? Every other developed country on Earth manages to run a decent universal system that produces health-outcomes on a par with the US at less cost per capita than the US spends on its means-tested one.

Why can’t the US do what the UK, Canada, France, Germany etc. do? You think our politicians are any less idiotic than the lot running the UK at the moment?

You guys are, apparently, the greatest nation on Earth. You put a man on the moon, FFS. What’s standing between them and the solutions so many other countries have worked out?
Anonymous

I have learned in my short life that the only way to fix things in politics is to let them get worse.

I figure we’ll adopt a universal health care system for the long-haul (unlike what’s likely to be passed now) only after 10s of millions of middle class white people are forced off the rolls due to the worsening economy and the profit-seeking (and ultimately self-destructing) insurance companies.

Our oligarchy will not help out the little guy unless it is presented with a very compelling reason, and even then it will resist.
Anonymous

I agree with ‘T3knomanser’, we should adopt a system that would inevitably make Feudalism look like a utopia.
Itsumishi

I can name 3 advantages to the American healthcare system.

Firstly if you are filthy rich or you work for a rich enough company that wants to keep you alive and employed with them enough you will probably get some of the best care in the world (America has some of the highest rates of success with cancer treatments for example [Source]).

Also because the industry is so profit driven and some people will pay absurd amounts of money for treatments that are new and cutting edge the US does create a huge amount of new forms of treatments that are positive and successful.

Thirdly because it’s so profit driven a heck of a lot of Doctors move to the US.

However there are of course important counter points to these 3 ‘advantages’.

If you’re not rich or insured properly (which is a massive, massive part of your population) then you’re fucked compared to if you were in a country with proper Government run systems in place.

These same technological advances and treatments spread around the world to pretty much every developed country anyway, so we (every developed country outside the US) get the benefits anyway.

You can still pay Doctors good wages on a public system, just have both systems in place side by side like Australia does. (Although there are much better systems then Australia’s anyway).
noen

“i guess it was foolish of me to have thought of the money i earn as being mine. what a juvenile position i was taking!”

Yes, it is a adolescent position. Most 16 year olds do think of themselves as the center of the world, then they get older.

“Taxation is theft” — The cry of the common Gilded Libertarian in the wild. No, it isn’t theft. You are a part of a community. You are not separate and alone only, you are part of a whole also.

Taxes are the price we pay for civilization, that is what it costs. The alternative isn’t some fantasy of rugged individualism, living alone in the wilderness. It’s either choose to be a part of our civilization or go back to a hunter/gatherer life, or more likely, die.

Ted Kazinsky was someone who took anarcho-libertarian-primitivism to it’s logical conclusion. He was smarter than most people, a brilliant mathematician. What did he do? Beside the terrorism what Kazinsky did was he really tried to survive one his own. He took all his knowledge and his intellect and tried to live according to his philosophy.

He failed.

The only reason he didn’t starve to death in that cramped cabin of his is because his brother sent him money now and then so he could buy food.

What does this mean? I means that the Libertarian ideology that we are individuals apart from community, that it is even possible to survive outside of it, that proposition is a lie. The Libertarian ideal: “I reign supreme!” is an illusion based on an irrational belief which is then supported by arguments that all assume what they pretend to prove.

“The purpose of government is for us to do collectively those things we cannot do alone.”

Or in other words, to provide for the common good. One of those goods is healthcare which by it’s very nature cannot be commodified. It is you nutbastard, who lack any kind of moral or ethical footing.
Timothy Hutton

I’d just like to make one point – the government has exactly one source of money, it’s citizens and anything it offers “for free” is actually paid for by it’s citizens.

To wit, if we look at the boundry case of all healthcare being provided by the government, it’s cost will be passed to the citizens 100% (plus typical government overhead expenses), likely apportioned across the populus according to income level. The “cost” of free health insurance will be bourne by everyone to some degree, and no, there aren’t enough magical “Over $250,000/year” income earners (currently 2% of all US households) to cover the cost of such a comprehensive program.

Personally, I wish the government would focus on the poorest of the poor, those estimated 10 million plus individuals that earn between (0 to 2x their respective state poverty level) and are eligible for the various federally-funded, state-run SCHIP insurance plans but for whatever reason haven’t signed-up.
Stickarm

@ Matt Volatile, July 12, 2009 6:16 AM

“What’s standing between them and the solutions so many other countries have worked out?”

Greed.
Anonymous

I think the government should leave the people choose the kind of health insurance that they want, and on the other hand, intensify the laws governing life insurance companies so that no fly-by-night insurance companies can fool anyone…

Dante Mayor
n

I don’t understand how otherwise intelligent people can reasonably expect the government to accomplish anything. It is the nature of large organizations to develop overhead and low-quality feedback loops.

I empathize with the ideals of universal health care. I just know it won’t work.

The root to escalating health care costs is to give people more ability to shop around for affordable health care. The true future of health care is going to be made up of things like the cheap walk-in clinics that have are being piloted in places like Wal-Mart. Fixed pricing, with quick and reasonable health care for most of the common ailments.
Anonymous

As a dual US/Canadian citizen who has lived under both systems, all i have to say is “hehe” when the anti-nationalized health care propaganda spews forth. heheheheheh
Anonymous

@Timothy Hutton,

So what? It’s not like insurance companies work pro bono. Citizens end up paying for 100% of the costs anyway, in addition to contributing to the companies’ profit margins. In the case of health care, the larger the pool of healthy individuals paying into a system, the better it works. This is a situation in which a more centralized system that everyone pays into will yield better results than a fragmented one.
Anonymous

@NOEN
I’m behind you all the way! What intelligent posts!

I’m American living illegally in Canada. I pay $50 for a visit to the medical clinic here. Prescription drugs are much cheaper here especially at CostCo.
I was recently in the Chicago area visiting my parents and had a sinus infection. I called a couple clinics to get some antibiotics–because I’m not insured, the cheapest clinic was $286 for a visit! To see a doctor for five minutes to get a prescription! I couldn’t believe it! Needless to say, I went to a health food store and bought some oil of oregano instead.

A few things to keep in mind people…

The U.S. has a huge aging baby boomer population who are going to need health care. Who’s going to pay for it?

25% of the adults in the U.S. are obese; 1/3 of the children are obese. Who’s going to pay for their health care problems…diabetes, heart problems, high blood pressure, etc….?

Part of the reason the economy is in such horrible shape and so many people are out of work is because of out-sourcing. Why do companies out-source to India, China, etc.? Because they don’t have to pay the health care benefits!

It’s amazing to me that the U.S. started not one but two wars because 3000 people died on 9/11 but you don’t seem to care about the 20,000 people who die each year because they don’t have health care insurance. You’d rather spend billions of dollars to kill people in other countries than take care of your own.
It’s really embarressing to be American sometimes…
coldspell

American supporters of universal health care should study Canadian conservatives for talking points that might appeal to American conservatives. The idea that a conservative (Canadian) politician could support such a system must make GOP heads explode.

Unfortunately, I fear an American system would sabotaged by the GOP to “prove” that universal health care can’t work.
Anonymous

“and no, there aren’t enough magical “Over $250,000/year” income earners (currently 2% of all US households) to cover the cost of such a comprehensive program.”
That’s simply a false argument. Universal health care will be cheaper than your current “let the poor die” system. USA is one of the most richest nations in the world, after all.
Anonymous

@N
“The true future of health care is going to be made up of things like the cheap walk-in clinics that have are being piloted in places like Wal-Mart.”

Keep in mind, not every department in a hospital is profitable, but all are necessary. The money-makers keep the others afloat. Cheap specialty clinics only handle cases that are profitable to them. This practice diverts money away from larger health care institutions, forcing them to charge more for the services that only they are able to provide. So in your “future of health care”, you’ll be able to get immediate care for a common cold, but would have to prepare for bankruptcy if you needed your appendix out.
Takuan

it simple: you can’t kill all the poor outright, so just kill all the sick poor and the problem will go away. Neglect works.
Timothy Hutton

From the fine article (as excerpted above):

WENDELL POTTER: And [Wall Street thinks] that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that’s what– that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street’s expectations with the medical loss ratio.

As publicly-traded, for-profit organizations, they are expected to turn an ever-increasing profit. I’m not defending that healthcare should be provided by a publicly-traded, for-profit organization, but to expect them to act differently is simply naive.

But politicians, please, PLEASE think through the implications of cutting over to Universal Healthcare coverage – no more “EMERGENCY, GOTTA PASS IT NOW OR THE WORLD WILL MELT DOWN, MILLIONS WILL DIE, AND YOUR 401K WILL TANK” bills – please – it’s too important.
arkizzle / Moderator

“I empathize with the ideals of universal health care. I just know it won’t work.”

Oops! Too late!
Anonymous

N: “I empathize with the ideals of universal health care. I just know it won’t work.”

You know this based on…? Every single piece of evidence to the contrary in every single other developed, humane country in the west?

Or, you’re just going with your gut (and decades of neo-con propaganda)? Please. Read, listen, think and then write.
Modusoperandi

Yes. Take that, government! You can’t do anything! Boo society! Go away, social contract! Me! Me! Me! With private everything, I can pay twice as much for the same crap!

(insurance arrives in mail)

Oh. I’ve been denied my claim. Anyone have a hundred grand they can spare?

(knock at door)

Oh. They’re reposessing my hip. Pity.
Snig

N@5
do you drive on deer paths or a highway? Are you reading this with power from off the grid, or through power provided through an components or entities that at some stage was heavily controlled by the government? Does the water you drink come from a company that demands opacity and secrecy in it’s policies and pricings? Do you think the internet was entirely invented by AOL and similar companies, or was the government ARPA somehow involved?

Yes, government has the potential to suck, but it can get things accomplished. I agree Wal-Mart clinics are not a bad thing if done well (they need serious oversight), and may well have a place, but not sure how quick and reasonable things will get for the guy who needs orthopaedic surgery or chemotherapy. I can see the website now “Dialysis unit not offered in all stores, call ahead for availability”.
Timothy Hutton

Sorry, not trying to pile on – one line I heard a while ago sums up much of what’s wrong with healthcare in the US: “People consume health care like they are on an expense account, without concern for the cost“. A change in that mentality could go a long way towards cutting costs IMHO…

An interesting comparison piece by John Stossel comparing US Healthcare with the Canadian system, for those interested.
Anonymous

@ Timothy
It’s not the poorest of the poor who have the most problems with the current system. The current system is hard on people who are well above the poverty line.
My friend’s 1-year-old needed a liver transplant (he’s 4 now). Since his health insurance was tied to his employment, he’s stuck in his current job (which is not even related to his degree) leaving him essentially permanently underemployed. If he’s layed-off, the ongoing costs of follow-up care will have them sleeping in their car in a year.

Government overhead expenses are in the single digit percents. Corporate health insurance overhead is more than 20% (and that doesn’t count the overhead of the health care providers who have to employ as many paper-pushers as clinicians just to keep the lights on.)

It’s time to stop thinking of health care as an “industry” altogether.
noen

I’m prepared to offer them a compelling reason any_mouse. Which would they prefer I wonder? The French solution or the Dutch?
Matt Volatile

Timothy:

“I’d just like to make one point – the government has exactly one source of money, it’s citizens and anything it offers “for free” is actually paid for by it’s citizens.”

This is of course true. But the citizens of the UK and Canada (and France, and Germany, and Australia, and New Zealand and…) pay less per capita in terms of tax take for our fully-socialised system (to which we all have unlimited, un-means-tested, free-at-the-point-of-use care from cradle to grave) than you do ALREADY for the Medicare and Medicaid systems which most people aren’t allowed to use.

We pay less, and get more. This is true of all universal systems. Why on Earth would you not be in favour of such a system?
Anonymous

First, I expect that nothing said in the interview strikes anyone as really surprising. I don’t even live in the US, and I knew all that this guy said beforehand. Second, he can’t be that isolated… he must have known that his company systematically denied health care because of monetary reasons.

And for those of you saying a government can’t run health care and that “everyone will end up paying”… the bureaucracies you’re supporting right now are as big as the governments if not bigger, and their intentions are not your well being. The government can get health care to be way cheaper than these companies can and yes, everyone will pay… and last time I checked you’re like 300 million people. I don’t know what the yearly expenditure on health care would be but even if it’s say 10 billion dollars a year that’s less than 5 dollars a month per person (ok, my numbers may be off… but you get the point).

That “save yourself” mentality is what’s making America into a country nobody likes, you should know it.
Matt Volatile

“I empathize with the ideals of universal health care. I just know it won’t work.”

It works everywhere else that’s tried it. The experiment has been done. The results are in. You’re wrong.

They’re not perfect, of course, but universal systems produce comparable healthcare outcomes, for everyone, cheaper than the US system.

If you want to argue that the US government is uniquely incompetent amongst all Western nations, then go ahead. I don’t think you’d have a very plausible case, though.
jgs

Timothy Hutton –

#4, citizens are going to pay one way or the other — currently it’s through a patchwork of private insurance, public insurance (of which we already have a lot, Medicare and Medicaid), and hospital prices inflated so the solvent and/or insured can underwrite losses incurred to the insolvent/uninsured using ER as primary care. The only question is whether a system run by the government would be even less efficient than what we have now. It’s almost inconceivable (yes, that word means what I think it means :-) that it could be, not because the government is so good but because the status quo is so bad. I’ve experienced using the current system for a couple of major things, and even with all the cards in my favor (large insurance carrier, big employer, willingness, ability and stubbornness to work the system) it was like a trip through Kafka-land.

The only way I can see to make an economic argument that overall costs would go up in a government-run system or that health care costs are not already borne by everyone to some degree is if you assume that some large proportion of citizens currently choose not to consume health care at all, not even as ER care after they’ve become grievously ill (perhaps due to lack of cheaper preventive care), and that these hypothetical hordes who currently choose to lie down and die rather than step into a hospital would start consuming health care once Uncle Sam steps in. That seems like a dubious premise to say the least.

#48, as to why health care is tied to employers — allegedly this is due in part to GM lobbying in the 30s, when they believed that dependence on them for health care would help them retain serfs^H^H^H^H^Hemployees. Adds a little frisson of irony to their eventual predicament.
IamInnocent

Soon the corrupt and fraudulous health system in the US will force the country to surrender to Canada.
Doug Nelson

The problem is that when you discuss quality of life and the health of the poor, the health industry cries that they’re a business. But when you discuss competition and a truly free healthcare market, they cry they’re a public service. This is the reason the rhetoric gets so hot.

I personally find the concept of maximizing profit by deciding who lives or dies, or reducing quality of life to economics appalling. But I would be open to the healthcare industry agreeing to be run as an industry, with competition and market forces fully in action. But this will never happen, and isn’t the right thing anyway.

It took government action to ensure businesses couldn’t refuse to serve black people, and to force businesses to accommodate people with disabilities. I see this as no different.
Takuan

there must be a way to turn a buck on the coming chaos… black market organs from the desperate sounds likely… think I’ll set up a transplant clinic and make the frantic parent trying to raise money to save their sick child kiss a portrait of Cheney before they give up a kidney for cash. Have to teach them their place, you know.
orangebag

I was about to complain that you had misspelled “flak”, but my US dictionary tells me that “flack” is acceptable in lands with health care systems run for the benfit of Insurance Companies.
Takuan

what if governments everywhere were forced by the expectations of their citizens to provide healthcare and found they couldn’t afford military budgets?
Anonymous

I think by making simple decisions to buy or not buy, consumers have changed entire industries â€” banking, travel, cell phones. A little pressure from consumers typically produces a lot of innovation that shifts products, competition, prices, quality, choices, and ultimately value. The problem with personal and corporate health insurance is that it has been built around providers, insurers, the government, employers â€” and not around consumers. We’ve ended up with spiralling costs and few consumer choices, primarily because many of the regulations and mindsets governing health care have inhibited the kind of broad-scale consumer innovation that’s happened in other industries.
Jason Rizos

I’m not sure if the video leads you to this little tidbit, but you won’t want to miss the conclusion:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-moyers-weighs-washington-posts-pay-play
tim

households earning over $250K/year to fund universal health care – since they comprise about 2% of all households in America,

From http://www.factcheck.org (and I have no particular idea whether they are especially believable, but what the hell, since when did truthiness have anything to do with American policy)

Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures.

Apparently total federal income tax payments amount to around $1T (according to the taxfoundation.org site, usual disclaimer) so the top 2% must be paying around $400B, give or take some loose change. It appears their average tax rate is around 20%. It would also appear that total income must be around $8T from the same table.

So your deranged assumption that ‘supporting’ 50 household’s worth of $5k/pa healthcare would add up to the entire income of such high earners is, well, deranged..
Takuan

know what’s funny? If you listen to Canadian radio (like CBC) you hear people angrily attacking the government for planning to secretly privatize health care.
noen

Timothy Hutton
“NOEN questioned the total cost of the wars in the middle east… Got a better number?
[...]
TIM questioned my math:”

I question your humanity. You see, for normal human beings the cost of war is not measured in dollars. That you think it is is why you do not belong in society. You are a self absorbed Libertarian jerk who thinks that human lives and human suffering can be reduced to numbers and paid off in dollars.

You also seem to have a lot of time to post lengthy and detailed comment after comment. Sucking on the government teat are we?

The point of Antinous’ comment wasn’t to make your simplistic dollar to dollar comparison. It’s just that, given the immense amount we pay to fund a machine who’s only function is to deliver death, it might be a good idea to take some of that and use it to fund life.

We can’t afford to fund our imperial empire. All nations that have tried to in the past have failed. The people who goad us into pursuing constant war do not have our best interest at heart. They are simply pursuing their own narrow short term interest.

Our long term interest would be better served by standing down our military, something we’ve not done since the end of WWII, and attending to our long term needs. Those needs include universal heathcare, public education, infrastructure, food, energy and so on.

The best way to provide for the common good in health is through a universal system of shared costs. It is in our collective self interest that we all be healthy, more or less. It is in the best interest of business that costs are shared. It spares them the expense of maintenance and allows them to better compete against foreign companies who do not have to shoulder the burden of providing their employees with healthcare.

There is a reason that Libertarians are mocked as “Glibertarians”. Your ideas are shallow, self absorbed and really not well thought through. You are idiots, but you’re useful idiots to those in power who wish to keep their wealth. Universal healthcare would mean that the rich would not get to keep quite as much of their money as they do now. The present system is pretty sweet for them. They get 99% of the America’s wealth and the rest of us get the doggy bowl that’s left over. You are useful to them because you are stupid enough to believe that you are the center of the universe, that you couldn’t survive four days without the community you despise never occurs to you.

You are a good Libertarian “but whose advantage are you working towards? … Considering your achievements and your good qualities, we will put you up against a good wall and shoot you dead with good bullets from good guns and then we will bury you with a good spade in good earth.”
VagabondAstronomer

After reading the transcript (and then some of the comments here), I developed a massive headache. I cursed for a solid ten minutes; feeling better.
This is what we can expect after three decades of a FIRE economy. The insurance industry is a monster.
RicRomero

This news just in: Insurance companies are more concerned with financial gain than they are with fairness and responsibility. People who invest in insurance companies are more concerned with financial gain than they are with fairness and responsibility.
Takuan

“The present system is pretty sweet for them. They get 99% of the America’s wealth and the rest of us get the doggy bowl that’s left over”

American foreign policy?
PaulR

“Dennis Kucinich Sets Dr. David Gratzer Straight”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DII7v8yeRjs
FTV:
Kucinich: “How many medical bankruptcies are there in Canada? … None or very few!”

Canadian Conservative Senator Hugh Segal likes Medicare in Canada:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tory-senator-goes-to-bat-for-health-care/article1194686/
FTA:
Mr. Segal took the rebuttal one step further. “According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average lifespan in Kentucky is 75.2 years and according to Statistics Canada, that number is 80.4 years in Ontario, 78.3 years in Kingston,” he told the Canadian Senate after discounting Mr. McConnell’s numbers.

“Furthermore, according to a Fraser Institute study, in 2006, the U.S. spent $6,714 per capita versus $3,678 in Canada.”

Actually, I’m kinda hoping that the US stays with the crappy health care system that they keep insisting, despite all evidence to the contrary, is the best in the world.
Has anyone else noted, that it’s all those people in power, who don’t have to pay for their health care, who like the American system?

Canucks can keep their competitive advantages – lower health care costs, longer life expectancy, better birth outcomes, lower rates of drug-resistant infections, illegal drug use, etc – and there’s that general well-being thing:
http://www.geostrategis.com/images/wellbeingb2.jpg
Takuan

why, I think I have it! the poor and the sick are damned FOREIGNERS!
pwylltwiceborn

Sorry to join in – could not log in at work.

As an Australian who works in our private health insurers, i find the Amercian system shocking.

An example that was told to me 2 years ago by a friend here. The Cost for the birth of a baby Privately in the US with a 2 night stay – $26000 US….
When my son was born 2 years ago – we went private. The cost to our Fund was just over $12000 AUS with 5 days stay in private room, with our out of pocket expense of $2000 approx.Our choice of Doctor – our choice of hospital

Scary thoughts – I pay approx $2000 year for my coverage – Full hosp and some good ancillary coverage.

My choice of fund.

Or i could have used the public system i pay with my taxes – Medicare levy is 1.5% of tax (guessing – have not checked lately – could be 2%)

{ side note – laws in place in australia means all health funds need to be self sufficant and the covers must pay for themselves – with no discrimination of any type and all Pre Existing Alimments covered after a 12 month waiting period. EVERYTHING – and the funds – even my nonprofit – still make money, just not hand over foot or killing ppl to do it..)

And from where i work – we have an Overseas Student cover for students with Study Visas they need to study here. They study for 2 years, pay their cover for 12 months then have what they need done and go home – costs them less than $700 aus for the coverage of our Medicare system…and get what is needed done with no other costs normally. Alot of babies born is Australia due to that …hehehe

The American system just proves that money/greed comes before making a BETTER COUNTRY.

It is shocking
Anonymous

This admin is also trying to tackle the why of health care costs from a cultural perspective. If you take a look at the poorest states in the country, they tend to be the least healthy.

We can lower health care costs for both Medicare/Medicaid and private insurers if we improve the quality of life for US citizens; healthier dietary options, less suburban sprawl, improved public transportation, increased education and self-awareness and so on.

A public option is a great idea, but only part of the solution. Insurers would still cut corners, but healthier, more educated citizens would mean less lives lost when those corners are cut.
Anonymous

This dude has a blog, by the way.
certron

These are all wonderful, interesting and insightful stories, but there seems to be a fact or three about the current reality missing…

This discussion is all well and good, but the simple solution of creating a taxpayer-funded single-payer system is not even on the table. Instead, we get the possibility of a ‘public option’ which, among other things, will not provide any of the overhead-slashing that would occur if health care providers only had to deal with one entity to invoice instead of figuring out what is covered by each plan, how much the copay is per patient, etc.

Single-payer sounds like a great idea, but we’re nowhere near having that in law. I think Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers have had this in bill form for the past 7-10 years, but it hasn’t gotten any traction because the ‘health care’ industry lobbies against it.

We can have a good idea and do it poorly. What it seems like we have coming is a half-baked idea done poorly, with concessions to every interest that was able to squeeze their rotund wallets into a seat at the table.
Brainspore

We have so many examples of services that the government runs more efficiently than private interests could that I barely know where to start.

Who here thinks that fire departments worked more efficiently back when they were competing private companies? Or that FedEx would be willing to schlep a letter from your house to rural Alaska for 44 cents? Even the water that comes out of your tap for next to nothing is subject to more oversight than what’s in the bottles you buy at the supermarket.
nutbastard

he lost me at “we shouldn’t fear government involvement in”.
ill lich

#6 N

I empathize with the ideals of universal health care. I just know it won’t work.

So, this industry insider comes out and admits that government run health care DOES work in the UK and Canada, and you decide you don’t believe it because of a theory about large organizations creating feedback loops?

We already have bureaucrats running our health-care system, industry bureaucrats. I don’t see how government bureaucrats can make it any worse, in fact a government option would increase competition. . . are you opposed to competition?
noen

Libertarians will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
tim

Hutton’s original post –

Regarding the comment by Anonymous about there not being enough households earning over $250K/year to fund universal health care – since they comprise about 2% of all households in America, that means that each houshold above $250K/year would be funding 50 households that earn less than the “magic” $250K/year. Fifty households at $5,000/year for coverage (as curently defined) means that those households would, on average, pay $250,000/year for healthcare coverage.

Hutton’s response to my post -

TIM questioned my math:
So your deranged assumption that ‘supporting’ 50 household’s worth of $5k/pa healthcare would add up to the entire income of such high earners is, well, deranged..
I never made that assumption, you did. You chose to ignore the “on average” in my statement.

Finally, your math appears a bit off – if $400BN represents 20% (or 1/5th) of the income earned by folks reporting $250K/pa or more, that puts their total income at around $2T, not the $8T you calculated (5 x $400BN = $2T)…

Your use of ‘on average’ in that original comment is absurd. It completely ignores the reality of income distribution and from the general tenor of your comments I gained the clear impression that you did that deliberately to deceive. Perhaps I should have phrased it as ‘your deranged *implication* ‘ etc etc. My apologies for mistaking a mistake for deceit.

My math is fine. Go back and read what I wrote. *Total* reported income is $8T. Top 2% earner income is $2T.
Tdawwg

Well, privatized fire companies were terrifically efficient in fighting and killing each other while letting buildings burn: they were good at extortion (“pay us or your building burns”) and lots of other crimes as well. Now we just get the occasional brawling and naughty language with those “regulated” “ladder companies” that the government has foisted off on us. Sheesh! Bring back the nineteenth century and its competitive profits-oriented spirit now!
Tetsubo

See, the Libertarians are convinced that come the Revolution it will be *they* that hold the guns. So, after killing off 99% of the sane people, everything will be peaches and cream.

Since Universal Health Care would save Americans huge amounts of money AND provide everyone with coverage I can’t figure out why the Republicans don’t back the plan. Oh yeah, it would benefit Poor People. And if Saint Reagen taught us anything, it was that Poor People are the ENEMY.
Takuan

heh! the “fire departments” in Gangs of New York.
nutbastard

yay, mob rule to make EVERYONE pay for something that YOU want! i guess it was foolish of me to have thought of the money i earn as being mine. what a juvenile position i was taking! but hey, THIS way, i wont have to work anymore – i’ll just quit my job since it’s no longer necessary for my health and well being. other people are going to pay for it, so what do i care? i’ll just drain unemployment, then welfare, get me some section 8 housing, and i won’t have to worry about a thing for many years to come, especially since social security so wisely forced me to put money away for retirement! hey maybe next year we can go for Universal Oil Changes or Universal Haircuts, because, darn it, I don’t like paying for those myself either!
Jason Rizos

Fine, fine. I’ll come out and say what is on the minds of Republicans that they won’t admit. The elephant in the room, if you will. Is this too obvious to bother posting?

The idea is that the cost of providing services to the 50+ million people who can’t afford it, via tax money, will cost MORE than the extended, intangible social cost of these people remaining sick (and not working) or declaring bankruptcy to escape insurmountable medical bills.

But there is also a middle group. Like those insured who cannot cover their co-pays and declare bankruptcy. Should these people PLUS the uninsured have access to state-of-the-art medical treatments?

The Republicans would prefer the cost of their own plans go up to cover those without means to pay rather than fund these services with tax dollars. Why? It assures them that they will not be sharing services with the poor. Bottom line.

The Republicans would like to see a vast expansion–unimpeded–of the lower class and this is where the compromise will begin. With substandard, subsidized care for the poor. An expansion of Medicaid under a new banner. That’s what we will get in the end.
Takuan

nut: go live in England, Canada or most of Europe for a year then come back here and apologize. Or just get sick in American and exhaust your benefits.
Anonymous

All these people that say socialized medicine wont work abviously work for the HMO’s and other greed driven organizations. I was overseas and hed no trouble getting treatment there, the same treatmant I cannot get here at all. We could have 2 levels of healthcare. A socialized one that treats everyone who can’t afford insurance, with limited ability for frivolous law suits to keep premiums down. And our current hypochondriac greed driven, law suit happy insurance that only a few of us enjoy, (or not). Where high priced doctors prescribe anti depressents like candy to get poeple to off themselves.
SamSam

@noen: Great post.
haineux

Let me make exactly one point: Insurance companies have entire sky scrapers FULL of lawyers suing people, and entirely separate sky scrapers FULL of PR personnel telling the press what horrid scoundrels their opponents are.

Oh, I know what you’re thinking: “But so does the Government.” And you are partially correct: both the US Government and the health care companies are enormous bureaucracies.

But think: which one do you, the taxpaying citizen, have any control over?

a) The insurance companies that routinely deny claims because of a technicality, and says “Yes, we figure you might sue us and win, but we’ll still make money,” —

Or

b) the US Government, which NOT ONLY has gone to the Moon, but has been providing fire protection, police protection, paved roads, schools, water, etc. for near two centuries?

This is coming up to a vote soon. If you vote for Government, you get to vote on issues in the way it works every few years.

If you vote for the health care companies, you are giving up your right to vote. You agree that the lawyers and PR personnel should be left alone to decide what’s best.

Special notice to libertarians: I also agree that there is Too Much Government. But I want someone to be in charge of expensive, big ticket items like roads, water, police, fire, AND public health, and I want those people working for ME, not the stock market.

What’s that you say? You don’t want the government in those big ticket businesses either? OK, when are you leaving America? And in the mean time, stop driving on MY roads.
Antinous / Moderator

It strikes me that the Americans who yell loudest about how universal healthcare would be stealing money out of their wallets are also the ones who are clamoring for the government to raid my bank account to go bomb wedding parties in Afghanistan. What makes this hypocrisy particularly distasteful is the fact that the budget for the War on Turbans is an order of magnitude larger than the potential cost of full health coverage.
MatthewFabb

To those who think that the Canadian health care system costs the tax payer more, might be surprised to find out that the US system costs the tax payer more per person than the Canadian system.

According to World Health Organization latest figures, which is from 2005, the US government pays $2862 US dollars per person on health care, while the Canadian government spent $2410 US dollars per person on heatlh care.
fenderbasher

@ #35 haineux:

Well said.
I hold Libertarian beliefs which include the view that there’s Too Much Government, yet I would rather see gov’t put the reigns on costs and cut personnel in other areas to compensate for the growth in this area. That would satisfy my desire to minimize government and get some control over the bureaucracy/mockery that is our current healthcare system.

Bunch o’ damn leeches, which have been used in medicine for centuries so I’m not surprised…
SamSam

I love it. I love how this segment highlights industry’s deliberate use of scare-tactics to get people to believe that gov’t-run health insurance could be the slippery slope down to evil communist chaos. Then we get a bunch of people repeating those exact same talking points.

Do you know where your talking points came from? That guy in the suit just said where! You’ve been made to believe that gov’t-run health insurance will fail, by a huge industry scared of losing profits, and now you do!

It’s just like when I see all the conservatives spouting the same talking points about global warming shortly after oil companies release them…
Cowicide

Didn’t see this mentioned… here’s a full hour, very in-depth interview with Wendell Potter. It’s very worth setting aside some time to watch if you are tired of the United States being the laughing stock of the rest the developed world when it comes to health care. Sigh…

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter
Anonymous

Several years ago best friends dad had nothing life threateningly serious but did have a degenerative disease that caused the cartilage in hes knees to to basically become useless and unable to effectively walk, he needed transplants in both. The transplants were underway but it wasn’t till after the insurance provider ended up screwing them over and her dad was out of work for a long recovery they had know immediate way of effectively paying off the bills. They lost everything from all the medical expenses and were forced to move from their nice home where they had lived in for over a decade to a small 2 bedroom apartment with their other 3 kids. Because they defaulted on payments their credits gone to crap and have since been considered a risk to loan too. It was terrible to watch but I doubt this is an unusual circumstance. Insurance in the US is horrible wrong and I think that alone makes it worth trying something else.
davis56

The Crossen Agency has provided exceptional service with personal and business insurance throughout North and Central New Jersey, since 1988.
Takuan

Crossen Agency? Aren’t they the ones that get sued all the time?
Spikeles

WENDELL POTTER: And over the course of a very few years, they shed eight million members.
BILL MOYERS: Eight million policy holders?
WENDELL POTTER: Eight million people, men, women, and children, yes.
BILL MOYERS: So what happened to Aetna’s stock?
WENDELL POTTER: Went up.

You know, Wall-Street is a world wonder in Civilization 4.. sometimes i think it should never have been dreamed up.
Anonymous

If you had to ask me why I would want a bureaucrat deciding what health care I get, I’d point out that it’s a choice between a government-paid scientist or a guy who gets bonuses for fucking me on the deal.

Easy choice.

Opponents of universal health care in the USA need to explain why our beloved free market has bought us the most expensive health care system that is also demonstrably not the best. Then they need to explain why Americans should be paying more for less – or more commonly, for next to nothing at all.
WarEagle

My fiancÃ© is in a couple of unique positions when it comes to this issue. First she has duel American/Canadian citizenship, and Secondly she has a rare genetic disease called Tuberous Sclerosis, or TS. In her 28 years she has had a few major surgeries, the most recent of which included the full removal of one kidney and removal of almost 3/4 of her other kidney because of tumor growth on them 7 years ago. All of these surgeries of course took place in Canada.

She moved down to Nashville to be with me a year ago, and has recently become unemployed. Now, to put it in plain terms, she is fucking screwed. As an out of work graphic designer she is unable to get any health care in America because of her “previous condition” which she was born with. Even though she hasn’t had any issues with TS in over 7 years, she is still completely uninsurable. You know, because she may actually have to USE the insurance if something bad happens. They can’t have that now can they??

Needless to say we are probably going to have to move her back to Canada until she can find work down here. Even then she has to live in Canada for 3 months before she can receive their health care again.

I wish daily that our system was exactly like the Canadian system. It works, it’s better, and it’s UNIVERSAL. Everyone citizen is covered. that is what is truly important.
wolfiesma

Yes. Universal, single-payer healthcare should be back on the table. It needs to be in the long-term planning goals, even if it can’t happen in the immediate term.
Pyros

Americans are a sick bunch, especially when compared to their European counterparts. Lifespan is about 10% shorter, infant mortality is dramatically higher, and people are also physically shorter. Some of this is attributable to inadequate medical care, but the more proximate reason is that American society has become a very class-stratified society–not that much different from all of the other countries in the Americas with the exception of Canada. The rich have access, the poor do not.

For example, morbidity, as represented by heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke, etc, follows a class curve. We all die sometime, but the vast American underclass live shorter lives while suffering from the above listed ailments for a longer time.

Why do the members of the underclass live lives which are nasty brutish and short? Because they’re in the underclass, of course. The real salutary affect that we can expect from Universal Healthcare is that it will level the playing field and make our society a bit more egalitarian. No wonder the rich are afraid.

Universal Healthcare, if properly put in place in the US, will ultimately be of benefit to the entire population though. (Ever read Mask of the Red Death?). Aside from being too expensive, the profit-motive aspect of the current system introduces way too much quackery and snake oil. In Canada and the UK a surgeon is less likely to recommend treatment unless s/he thinks it’s absolutely necessary. In the U.S., you have to always wonder whether the doc is influenced by a desire to build a third vacation home or some bullshit. People with insurance get the knife a lot.

You also have to calculate how much money insurance companies spend in order not to spend money. Good Lord. There is also the commissions paid out to agents who sell it. These range from 2% to 20% of monthly premium. It’s very wasteful. Horrible system that needs to go.
Felton

Unstoppable force of human need, meet immovable wall of human greed.
drblack

At this time the USA will not get a true Universal coverage option that is fair and moral.
What we will get if we don’t watch out is a law that forces all Americans to buy health insurance from corporate insurers.
The corporate insurance companies are drooling over this option because then they can make giant profits from poor people without giving them much for their money.
Health care,education and law enforcement should all be non-profit.
People can make a very good living working for a non-profit.
drblack

Another point:
large companies are supposed to pay a 38% tax rate,but through various loopholes they actually pay only 7%.
In 2006 the top 200 companies paid 0% or got a refund.
That is where the missing tax money is and can come from.
Small business gets screwed and large companies pay no taxes.
Takuan

the more I think about it… there is a significant driving element in this that comes from the basic perversity of human nature. Those that have good health coverage can’t really appreciate it and feel happy with themselves unless they know someone else does NOT have it. Seeing sick, poor people reassures them that all is right with the world and they get a warm glow of being one of the Chosen Rich and Healthy. Someone dig up some Thorstein Veblen for me.
nutbastard

@#93 Takuan

you misunderstand – i don’t care whether universal healthcare would work or not. they could get it 100% right for 90% cheaper than it is now and it wouldn’t matter. it’s not the place of the government to be involved in our lives this deeply, and certainly it’s not their business to be involved in our lives this deeply against our will.

guess what, UHC supporters? there’s nothing stopping all of you from getting together and pooling your money and creating your own nonprofit, cooperative health insurance organization. and yet, you all will not do that because you know damn well that it wouldn’t be economically viable. you understand that to share and share alike among yourselves will not generate enough money. and so what’s the solution? taking the money from unwilling parties.

so go on with the statistics proving it can work, go on with the moral arguments like you have an ethical foot to stand on. because if you don’t understand that compulsory taxation to fund social programs is theft by proxy, i sure as hell am not going to convince you otherwise, not in a thousand years.
Takuan

http://costofwar.com/
Anonymous

“I empathize with the ideals of universal health care. I just know it won’t work.”

I see that others have jumped on this, but I have to as well, because this comment completely contradicts a lifetime of experience in Australia, seeing what public healthcare does for me and those close to me.

My father had a benign tumour removed from his lung last year, two weeks after it was discovered. The tests, operation, hospital bed, follow up visits and drugs etc cost us NOTHING out of pocket. My dad has never had to compare premiums, or hold onto a job he hates because its healthcare plan is better than others. My Dad’s case is very typical.
But what’s that you say? Taxes must be really high here? Money for medical innovation must be lacking, because the system is less organized around private profit? Queues must be extensive, and doctors scarce?
None of this is true. Our health costs as a % of GDP are a third lower than those in the US. Our medical researchers really are excellent – in the last decade and a half, they developed the first spray-on skin for burn victims, the first anti-cancer vaccine (it prevents the precursor to cervical cancer), and the first commercially viable gene-splicing technology. And as for queues – like I said, my dad’s case is typical.

Anyone who proclaims the inevitable failure of government healthcare is simply feeding the given issue of the day into the rusting, obsolete, Mccarthy-era machinery of Libertarian ideology.
I hope you all get over it, and get well soon: )
Sean
Uniquack

There is so much misinformation about universal health care. Truly understanding how to create a system that can provide good medical care for people is a complex topic, more like learning a programming language. It isn’t something you can fully understand from reading a few opinion essays and listening to some talk shows, which is what most people who are against it do to form what they think is an adequate opinion.

As a medical student, I’ve taken public health classes and studied some of the issues involved and it is clear the universal systems out there are all better in terms of hard health benefits (life expectancy, provision of care, etc.) than the US system, notwithstanding the occasional negative story which creates is a form of bias errors that should not be considered credible in judging the whole picture. As a start, look at the studies at the PNHP website, and then expand your reading in the academic journals on the subject. The Kaiser foundation puts out some very good comparative health care systems reports.

Really, if you don’t do this and just continue to naively repeat conservative/libertarian mantras, you are simply choosing to be foolish and willfully ignorant, a useful idiot and parrot for the economic interests that profit from your actions.
Anonymous

Anyone who insists that universal healthcare can’t work, I invite them to take an extended holiday to Australia. Something will get you sooner or later – shark, spider, box jellyfish etc – and then you’ll get to find out how good a healthcare system can be, and you’ll be cured of all your libertarian pessimism. And what’s more, you’ll get a tan ;)
Cheers,
Sean
Brainspore

Placing the burden of health care on employers instead of the government hurts companies as well as citizens. Imagine how much leaner GM would be if they didn’t have to worry about keeping all their employees insured.
Freddybear

If the American Congress is going to produce such a wonderful health care system, why won’t they agree to use it themselves?
Uniquack

Haineux @35, I can see a good bumper sticker or sign: “Hey Libertarians, stop driving on MY roads!”
Anonymous

Anyone reading this far can see that there are many ways to run a universal healthcare system that does much more good for far less money and hassle than that to be found in America. Yet someone will still be deploying buzzwords like freedom and choice to close down the debate. Those words are being used badly, against the ordinary citizens interests; its not as if the politicians spouting on about choice and freedom give a damn about your freedom to share downloads, smoke dope, have an abortion or choose euthanasia. Try this usage:

Why can’t Americans choose to have the government create a single-payer healthcare system that’s as good as the rest of the developed world? Why can’t you choose to vote for candidates who promise to build that system – like Clinton in ’92 – and just get it? Where is your freedom, if it prevents any collective solutions to collective problems? The only solution off the table – because Obama is a pussy still marvelling at the fact he’s in the White House, and petrified he’ll be a one-termer – is the single payer solution, the baest one out there.
thequickbrownfox

We out here mostly consider the U.S. health system/insurance behemoth a curious Swiftian folly (as in Jonathan Swift).

Or just a sign of immaturity.
Brainspore

@nutbastard #95:

…compulsory taxation to fund social programs is theft by proxy…

Just curious- do you feel the same way about the compulsory taxation that funds your local fire department? As mentioned earlier, that service was once confined to the private sector as well.
Modusoperandi

Takuan “Those that have good health coverage can’t really appreciate it and feel happy with themselves unless they know someone else does NOT have it.”
The metric of how happy someone is at work isn’t how much they make, it’s how much more they (think) they make than their co-workers (which sounds like a variant of schadenfreude).

Freddybear “If the American Congress is going to produce such a wonderful health care system, why won’t they agree to use it themselves?”
They’ve already got a system that’s better than most. Do you really thing they’d agree to be on the same plan as the common folk? Next you little people would be demanding limos with drivers! Perish the thought!
PaxVobiscum

One of the things that makes a universal healthcare system cheaper is actually one of the talking points against it in the states, the idea that “if it were free everyone would go all the time, clogging up the system”. In fact, this saves an awful lot of money because it does catch many things so much earlier. “An ounce of prevention for a ton of cure” I believe is the phrase.

In that same vain, here the system makes an active effort to get people to come in for physical examinations at medically relevant times, e.g. when women turn 50 they are reminded/asked to go be examined for breast cancer, and resources are set aside for this purpose.

Every patient diagnosed with terminal or late stage something-or-other will cost the system an amount equal to a far greater amount of preventative and early symptom care. Catching it early saves lives in and of itself, as well as by saving resources. That has appeal to the economically minded.

Universal health care has a great many flaws, it can be slow, sluggish and unkind, but the alternative is, from my admittedly biased viewpoint, absolutely unthinkable. Maybe thats the real problem, maybe its just a basic lashing out against change.
Timothy Hutton

ANTINIOUS claimed:

What makes this hypocrisy particularly distasteful is the fact that the budget for the War on Turbans is an order of magnitude larger than the potential cost of full health coverage.

I think your “order of magnitude” is backwards…

Cost of healthcare in 2007:

Expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2.2 trillion in 2007

Cost of war in Middle East:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would cost almost $136 billion for the 2009 budget year that began Oct. 1 if they continue at their current pace.

I don’t think healthcare costs in the US went down since 2007, and the numbers for the war are as provided by this administration for current-year activities. All in, the War on Terror has cost the US some $864 Billion dollars, or 1/2 the annual expenditure for health care in the US.
Timothy Hutton

Regarding the comment by Anonymous about there not being enough households earning over $250K/year to fund universal health care – since they comprise about 2% of all households in America, that means that each houshold above $250K/year would be funding 50 households that earn less than the “magic” $250K/year. Fifty households at $5,000/year for coverage (as curently defined) means that those households would, on average, pay $250,000/year for healthcare coverage.

How long do you think that will function?

Like it or not, the rich have options those of more moderate means don’t. Mayor Bloomberg made a comment recently that one of his great fears is that 7,000 of the super-rich will move out of NYC and kill their tax revenue base – it has happened in Maryland already, where 3,000 million dollar plus tax returns suddenly became 2,000 after they created a “millionaire” tax targeting those very people. Tax revenue went down $100 Million.
Takuan

nut, look at the world; only some things seem to work. In matters of health it’s best to be conservative.
Timothy Hutton

The question I haven;t seen posted yet, and I think it is a very good one (and it goes directly to Anonymous‘s point in his/her comment):

It’s not the poorest of the poor who have the most problems with the current system. The current system is hard on people who are well above the poverty line.
My friend’s 1-year-old needed a liver transplant (he’s 4 now). Since his health insurance was tied to his employment, he’s stuck in his current job (which is not even related to his degree) leaving him essentially permanently underemployed. If he’s layed-off, the ongoing costs of follow-up care will have them sleeping in their car in a year.

The question is, why is health care tied to employers in the US? I assume it has to do with the tax code, that marvelous mechanism that allows the government to exert control over the citizens…

As a side note, I wonder why HIPAA doesn’t allow him to carry healthcare coverage from employer to employer? That was one of the stated goals of the HIPAA act of 1996 (here’s a Wikipedia link, take as a generic launching point for personal investigation, not an authoritative resource). For those that never knew what HIPAA stands for, it is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, though most people focus on the privacy aspect of the act, what about the portability part?
Moriarty

Half-assing a healthcare solution probably won’t help much and might even make it worse, “proving” the naysayers right. What I think we need to do is to say right off the bat that, however we choose to go about it, every single person employed by the health insurance industry will lose their current job within 2 years. That might not even actually come to pass, but it seems like it’s squeamishness about that cost which is holding us back as much as anything else, and we need to come to terms with it. A healthier population with a couple thousand dollars more per year in every pocket will more than make up the damage to the economy, and the best of them will be prime candidates for positions managing a more efficient system.
Timothy Hutton

FREDDYBEAR asked:

If the American Congress is going to produce such a wonderful health care system, why won’t they agree to use it themselves

In a related vein, I wonder how many public school teachers realize that school districts will be among the first to off-load their health care benefits to a so-called “universal healthcare system”, trashing those hard-won benefits in one fell swoop.

Here in NJ, school districts pay for nearly 100% of teachers health care coverage, and there are limits on budget growth year-over-year, so it is only logical for the district to shed that cost and focus more monies on the students…

I don’t quite think the teacher’s unions that overwhelmingly voted Democratic in the last election thought that one through, at least not here in NJ…
Timothy Hutton

Antinious – my link got messed up, here is the link to the source of the “cost of the war” quote.

Also, the source was from the previous administration (Jan. 7, 2009, a few weeks before President Obama took office).

Apologies.

This NY Times piece pegs the cost at $144 BN for FY2009, and is dated May of this year and is sourced from the current administration.