The other sacred cow of the debate is that "single-payer" (i.e., Medicare for all), has been taken off the table since early in 2008. By leaving the private insurance companies as the main payers in the health industry the swollen cost excesses of their profits, their executive pay and the paperwork that haunts every aspect of medicine are all left draining the system of room to change.
Among the danger these two sacred cows creates is that in order to cover the 15% of the population now without insurance, the 85% with insurance may find their costs increase. The Senate Finance Committee, for example, seems intent on making existing employer provided health benefits taxable. The effect will be to tax workers to pay for the health care of the poor-not a great way to garner broad political support.
Presently Medicare Hospital Insurance is funded by a payroll tax of 2.9% divided between the employer and the employee. In 2008 that tax produced $230 billion in receipts. In addition, Medicare enrollees pay for supplemental coverage for doctor's bills and yet again for prescription drug coverage. Medicare patients have free choice of doctors and hospitals; their federal insurance pays the bills within broad parameters of cost. Medicare's administrative costs are small fractions of the private insurance companies "take" from premiums.
As distinct from the British system where doctors are employees of the National Health Service, there would be literally no change in the employment structure of doctors under such a plan-and those of us now in HMOs might actually have more choice in the doctors we can visit. If such a broad based tax were to fund health insurance, what would be the fate of those employed who now have really good plans largely paid by their employers? The employers might then shift money now going to insurance premiums into wages; or after paying the payroll taxes, if they and their employees and unions agreed, they could offer various supplemental types of insurance, as Medicare now does.
While many elderly people and their doctors would like to fix various aspects of Medicare, there is no uproar to get rid of it -- it largely works. So why aren't we looking to this pretty good system as a model? Alas, with or without Obama in the White House, the permanent government of power brokers and money handlers is alive and well inside the Beltway. And the health insurance dinosaurs make the marble columns of government tremble with the impact of money hitting politics. According to the Center for Responsive Politics' Lindsay Renick Mayer, since 1998 the insurance industry has contributed $568 million (that's over one half billion!) to political campaigns. Pretty soon it'll add up to real money. They've spent $19 million just lobbying though June of this year.
So don't be surprised if, as the pollster Stan Greenberg told NPR, "it's beginning to feel like deja vu all over again" (in 1993 when he was a pollster for President Clinton he was getting the same results he is getting now). People want change, they favor public initiative, but they are afraid the price of improving the 15 percent will harm the 85%. Not much coming out of the Beltway is calming that fear and the reason is Washington won't touch the untouchables.
To Republicans alarming the public about the imminent rationing of health care, I submit that any health care system rations care. The U.S. just does it indiscriminately and insufficiently. It’s irrefutable that we prescribe and pay for too much unnecessary health care. Let’s move beyond the debate about whether we need a public insurance option. We do. Let’s debate the most relevant and most difficult question: how should we pay for comprehensive health reform?
http://axisofreason.com/2009/07/13/us-private-health-insurance-classic-market-failure/
These Democratic Senators have NOT agreed to support it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
These names are reported by The Hill here and here
Update: Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) says she supports a public option.
Update: Senator Jeff Binghaman (D-NM) says he supports a public option.
You can also contact the White House and voice your opinion
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php
Clearly President Obama is approaching this bassackwards. Let's see the government prove that they can fix a small health care system before trying the whole works. Any one will do - Medicare, Veteran's Health, etc.
I know I wish we had elected somebody with executive experience. Anyone knows you don't roll out a product without the necessary trial and error. And if this doesn't work there will be no going back.
Before you "break it" you better be sure it will work. Thus let them fix Veteran care or Medicare. Then I'll be all for nation health care coverage.
Medicare is funded by the 1.45% portion on the social security tax on a worker's paycheck. This amount is matched by the employer.
The biggest part of the problem is the overall medical inflation in the U.S. We currently spend more than twice as much for every citizen in the U.S. than any other developed country, even though 25% are uninsured or underinsured. In the past 20 years the increases in health costs are about six times the increase in general inflation. Healthcare consulting firms are already projecting a 9% increase for 2010.
The excess costs are largely caused by insurance companies and other price gougers who add nothing to the health care of Americans. The U.S. is about 30 years behind in health care. Actually, Germany has had universal care for 120 years!
1. The reason administration costs of Medicare appear to be low is that
it excludes the cost of fraud which is massive;
2. It underpays providers; and
2. It is projected to have a $15 trillion shortfall while insuring only
45 million people.
In other words, Medicare is extremely expensive, rife with fraud and
financially unsustainable. Congress seems to want a plan where the
top 5% pay for everyone else and, not surprisingly, the numbers just
don't work out. Are there any countries with universal health care
where 43% of the population pays no taxes? It seems to me that for
there to be enough revenue for health care, everyone will have to pay a certain percentage of income as well as adequate co-pays. I am puzzled
by the belief that health care should be "free". Available yes, free no.
it excludes the cost of fraud which is massive"
The fraud is caused by the medical profiteering insurance companies.
Ex-Hospital CEO Battles Reform Effort
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002243.html?hpid=topnews
Health insurers build up market clout
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears
Health insurers refuse to limit rescission of coverage
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,3508020,full.story
Then, when people can be elected to the house and particularly the senate without being beholden to these people for funds, they can start making independant decisions based on what policy choices are better, not which fundraisers they will help or hurt.
Are you kidding? Medicare is bankrupting the country and creating doctor shortages.