Conditions for animals: Letters for Monday, Nov. 9

"Every man woman and child has a right to health care. That's right we live in one of the richest countries on the face of the planet. People die every day because they don't have health care."

No one has any "right" to health care. We no longer live in one of the richest countries on the face of the planet. People die every day for all sorts of reasons and having health care won't change that. You seem pretty out of touch with reality.

Snicker wrote:

"Every man woman and child has a right to health care. That's right we live in one of the richest countries on the face of the planet. People die every day because they don't have health care."
No one has any "right" to health care. We no longer live in one of the richest countries on the face of the planet. People die every day for all sorts of reasons and having health care won't change that. You seem pretty out of touch with reality.

I'll tell you what. Don't ask me to pay for insuring all these people and I won't condem you for being so willing to downgrade your own lifestye so that you can make sure everyone else is covered.

I don't want to go broke trying to pay for someone else's health care and as a matter of fact I don't even think we have enough money to save all the uninsured even if I did agree with you.

Anamouse, what then to do about the million or so Americans who are bankrupted every year paying for medical care their insurance won't cover? Is this the moral solution, to let people suffer, maybe on some occasions die, and to allow others to go into bankruptcy simply to maintain the purity of some ideology? Or worse, to protect the profitability of a large corporation that benefits most by restricting medical care? Are we really that callous a people that we will hoard our own wealth and let other citizens suffer and die? That emphatically is not what I think our great nation should be like.
The fact is, our current system of health care is the costliest in the world. Almost any change that increases coverage should begin to reduce overall costs. Study up and learn what the actuarial term "adverse selection" means. Once you understand adverse selection and it's affect on insurance costs, you will understand the reason for a mandate of universal insurance coverage.

the drag on the economy because of the uninsured, the underinsured, and those who go bankrupt because their insurance is canceled ?

Anybody know if it adds up to $100 billion ?

Hey banAnamoose, you need to go stick your head back into the sand where it's safe.

Phil wrote:

Anamouse, what then to do about the million or so Americans who are bankrupted every year paying for medical care their insurance won't cover? Is this the moral solution, to let people suffer, maybe on some occasions die, and to allow others to go into bankruptcy simply to maintain the purity of some ideology? Or worse, to protect the profitability of a large corporation that benefits most by restricting medical care? Are we really that callous a people that we will hoard our own wealth and let other citizens suffer and die? That emphatically is not what I think our great nation should be like.
The fact is, our current system of health care is the costliest in the world. Almost any change that increases coverage should begin to reduce overall costs. Study up and learn what the actuarial term "adverse selection" means. Once you understand adverse selection and it's affect on insurance costs, you will understand the reason for a mandate of universal insurance coverage.

Let me explain my beliefs on few of the questions you posed.
First, I empathize with the billions of people, not just American citizens in this country, but those here illegally, and those who are waiting to legally come here and those who just can't, and need medical care they can't afford to get at someone else's expense; but I'm not willing to throw all of my money into a big bowl so that they can all be a LITTLE better off.
I don't believe we have enough money or doctors, nurses and equipment to even realistically extend our limited resources to all these needy people, so I don't want to throw out the welcome mat and promise free medical care to all or any large portion of them.

Phil wrote:

Anamouse, what then to do about the million or so Americans who are bankrupted every year paying for medical care their insurance won't cover? Is this the moral solution, to let people suffer, maybe on some occasions die, and to allow others to go into bankruptcy simply to maintain the purity of some ideology? Or worse, to protect the profitability of a large corporation that benefits most by restricting medical care? Are we really that callous a people that we will hoard our own wealth and let other citizens suffer and die? That emphatically is not what I think our great nation should be like.
The fact is, our current system of health care is the costliest in the world. Almost any change that increases coverage should begin to reduce overall costs. Study up and learn what the actuarial term "adverse selection" means. Once you understand adverse selection and it's affect on insurance costs, you will understand the reason for a mandate of universal insurance coverage.

If you look at the expenditure curves that show how Americans with health insurance spend their health care money you'll quickly notice that by far the largest chunk gets spent near the end of their lives, and that's when most Americans who go into debt over their medical bills do it. Right now something likew 25% of us die from Cancer and close to the same from heart disease. In both cases the last months of life can easily be accompanied by medical bills that amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, if the patient has those resources, or insurance to pay those bills. Today if they don't, their life ends months before it might have, and thankfully often their and their families suffering as well.
You mention the cost of our horendously expensive system and I agree and want change, but not the change the current administration is trying to make.

Our system is bloated by lawsuits, so a huge portion of our medical premiums goes to pay outrageous medical malpractice settlements, very high insurance costs, and lawyers. To stop this we need tort reform, and it would lower our costs a lot.
We still are legally forbiden to purchase drugs from other countries where they are sold for less, even those made in the USA. That has devistating consequences on people who need those drugs, and it would be soooo easy to fix with a law that says we can buy them wherever they are sold, or by making it illegal for a drug company to sell to foreigners for less than they sell the same drugs here. Where's that law?

Instead of putting together a few new changes that could cut our medical costs in half, and passing them, the current administration is holding those changes hostage and refusing to give them to us unless we simataniously accept the sweeping social changes they want to give us with them. And even then, the current bills don't include any of the changes that will significantly lower medical costs, they just extend our system of extremely expensive care to millions of people that can't afford to pay for it themselves.

What was the last dollar cost per person? I don't remember, but I think they were spending something like 3 trillion dollars to extend insurance to a few million more people. It was soooo expensive per person that I couldn't believe they were saying it, and what is proposed would still leave millions in this country without medical insurance. What will they do for those folks, pass another 3 trillion dollar bill?

No, I don't rationalize my stand on this issue by claiming I have no heart, I believe I'm just being realistic about what we can really afford to do, and the impact of the unintended consequences of trying to do it the wrong way.

"I don't rationalize my stand on this issue by claiming I have no heart, I believe I'm just being realistic about what we can really afford to do, and the impact of the unintended consequences of trying to do it the wrong way."

Well said, Anamouse!!

Anamouse wrote:

Instead of putting together a few new changes that could cut our medical costs in half...

.
Since you've self-gratuitously proven yourself to be so wise, what changes will cut our medical costs in half ? Back up that statment you made.

Thank you for asking

Tort reform would help cut the most waste from the system.

First look at how much doctors have to pay for insurance to cover all these outrageous lawsuits. Most pay more to insure their office than you and I together probably make, and that's added to our premiums.

Second they are so scared of lawsuits that they constantly ask for and we pay for thousands of very expensive tests that are very largely un-needed, but since it's covered by insurance and they can be sued if they don't, they run them anyway. Often they cost more than the treatment that the doctor is already 99% sure they know is what is needed before they run all the tests.

Third, the legal industry is steeling us blind and if tort reform was passed we wouldn't have to support a huge army of RICH lawyers abusing the system so they could get rich, or pay another army of lawers of equal size to defend our doctors and lawywers.

Fourth, revise the billing system. Bills for the exact same operation or procedures vary over 400% depending on how much they think they can get them to pay. Look at any invoice that has been processed by most common insurance companies and it's easy to see. The medical office billing department invoices for a $33 asprin pill and the insurance company fights them and ends up paying $5 for it, and the medical company says ok. We're paying opposing billing and disbursement departments to fight each other on a daily basis, and they all eat up our medical dollars.

All these folks are getting a slice of our medical costs and the vast majority of them make no contribution to the medical care you probably want to buy and pay for.

With drugs, many huge American companies sell them abroad for far less than they sell them to US Citizens, using the reasoning that we can afford to pay for the research and people in other countries can't. We could save lots of money if we just allowed our citizens to purchase perscription drugs from wherever they were the least expensive.

What I belive is not devine inspiration that I just thought of, I compared how we spent our healthcare dollar 40 years ago with how it's spent today and the differnces are very easy to see.

Back then practically every little company offered full medical coverage for their employees and it cost a tiny fraction of the employees total compensation package compared to what less complete coverage costs today. I simpley looked to see where all the extra money was being spent.

I think we'd all be quite happy if we could set that clock back and have the type of coverages we had back then, without all the additional costs that don't help us at all.

has already taken place here in CA. Payouts are limited, and have been for a long time. One good expert witness and lawyer, say goodbye to your $.(As an aside, did you know that the 50% paid to your lawyer for taking the case is taxed too?)

the rest of this response is a bit long, but...

Tests - speak up when you see a new doc. Let them know test were already done, and they should refer to them. Let the cost savings begin with you.

Tort reform again ? Blah blah blah. It isn't as much as a problem as you think. Sure, some docs are interviewed on AM radio complaining about the lawsuits they are exposed to, but they are a small minority, and probably deserve the lawsuits they get for practicing bad medicine.

400% bills are done to cover the non-paying (uninsured, underinsured, etc.) patients. Hospitals are rarely profitable ventures, and none of them should ever deny care - legal or not - to anyone. I don't like it either, but they have to do it.

Drugs - agree with you on that, so why wouldn't you support price controls here in the US so you don't have to send $ abroad (Canada)- or is that too socialist for you ? BTW, the notion that you shouldn't trust foreign drugs is bogus since many of them are mfg'd outside the US anyways.

I did a little math with lots of big numbers, and the total cost for insurance per person (300 million in the US) per year is $333 (1 trillion over 10 yrs) to $500 (1.5 trillion over 10 yrs).

Americans already pay out $1 trillion plus a year for health insurance, and 30% of that goes to profits. Then we pay out more to cover the uninsured, etc., the bankrupt (all the creditors who pass their losses back to the paying folk), etc.

Cover everyone with insurance, give them [personal and family] sick days too (so they don't show up to work and spread disease on to coworkers, customers, etc), the whole country will be better off.

Screwy website. Apologies if this posts twice.

Tort reform wrote:

has already taken place here in CA. Payouts are limited, and have been for a long time. One good expert witness and lawyer, say goodbye to your $.(As an aside, did you know that the 50% paid to your lawyer for taking the case is taxed too?)
the rest of this response is a bit long, but...
Tests - speak up when you see a new doc. Let them know test were already done, and they should refer to them. Let the cost savings begin with you.
Tort reform again ? Blah blah blah. It isn't as much as a problem as you think. Sure, some docs are interviewed on AM radio complaining about the lawsuits they are exposed to, but they are a small minority, and probably deserve the lawsuits they get for practicing bad medicine.
400% bills are done to cover the non-paying (uninsured, underinsured, etc.) patients. Hospitals are rarely profitable ventures, and none of them should ever deny care - legal or not - to anyone. I don't like it either, but they have to do it.
Drugs - agree with you on that, so why wouldn't you support price controls here in the US so you don't have to send $ abroad (Canada)- or is that too socialist for you ? BTW, the notion that you shouldn't trust foreign drugs is bogus since many of them are mfg'd outside the US anyways.
I did a little math with lots of big numbers, and the total cost for insurance per person (300 million in the US) per year is $333 (1 trillion over 10 yrs) to $500 (1.5 trillion over 10 yrs).
Americans already pay out $1 trillion plus a year for health insurance, and 30% of that goes to profits. Then we pay out more to cover the uninsured, etc., the bankrupt (all the creditors who pass their losses back to the paying folk), etc.
Cover everyone with insurance, give them [personal and family] sick days too (so they don't show up to work and spread disease on to coworkers, customers, etc), the whole country will be better off.
Screwy website. Apologies if this posts twice.

I'm a little surprised that you regard the value of tort reform as nothing more than chump change, if it greatly reduces the amount of our medical dollar spent on litigation, un-necessary tests and insurance, I wouldn't call that chump change. You remind me of kids who throw their change on the ground, as though their so rich that it's not worth carrying around.
Oh and if you think the latest legislative proposals cover EVRYONE, look again, it doesn't. About half of the people you seem to think would be covered,(based on your high numbers), actually wouldn't.
And also look carefully, we're being asked to pay more taxes for 10 years for medical coverage that we'll only get for the last 6 years. If the plan continues after that they will have to increase our taxes for this great cause by 40% in order to make what they collect actually keep up with the projected spending rate.
By the way, when is the last time you heard of the government running any medical plan without the costs going way up beyond what they originally projected. So in 10 years if we want to continue the program it will probably mean we need to increase the taxes that have already been incresed to something like 4 times as high.
Of course we'll feel good about it because we'll be doing so much good for the rest of the world, RIGHT? Consider Aids alone. Obama has just lifted the restriciton against travel and immigration into this country by Aids positive people. There are millions in poor countries who are just waiting for the opportuity to come here so they can get the very expensive treatment we have here, and if we suddenly make it FREE to anyone who is here, how many do you think will come here and never go home? Aids is very expensive to treat and we're rolling out the welcome mat, why wouldn't every Aids infected person from other countries come her to get the best free treatment.
No, I think this will be a very expensive gigantic mistake that will do more to hurt the middle class than help them.

the even more expensive private health insurance.

Lawsuits need to exist. Imagine not being able to be compensated for botched medical service that affects you for the rest of your life. Is your answer that they should just suck it up ?

Imagine what would have happened if social security was actually pawned off to the banks and investment cos. Think the public would have had a bigger bang for the buck, or would most of us have been hoodwinked ?

And so what if Medicare costs more than was planned. Estimates are just that - estimates. They rely on stable pricing of commodities and services controlled by the private sector. When those items get a price bump, there goes the estimates.

The private sector is no better at controlling costs than the gvt is. Worse, there is very little transparency as to why health insurance premiums went up a lot faster than inflation. Ask your health insurance co what the premiums will be in five years or ten years, and then wait and see if they're right.

The math showed the costs put onto everyone for the insurance, whether they're covered or not. It's a bit like paying SSI, medicare, etc.- you pay, but there is no guarantee that you will get to use it.

Remember what happened to the folks with medicare, when they were told part of their coverage was going to be privatized. Panic, confusion, worry, too many choices and not much explanation why there were so many differences between the policies offered by the private health ins cos.

The govt really can't do any worse than what is being done to us right now; the guarantee is that they will always be there.

Still curious to know if you think regulating drug prices in the US is tatamount to socialism.

I agree we can't fairly end lawsuits, but that's far different from allowing the current out of control law suits to continue. I've personally known far too many people who jumped at the oportunity to file malpractice suits after a close relatave died, just because lawyers told them they could get a lot of money. When people get old they die, and it's rarely really the doctors fault, and even if the doctor made a mistake it shouldn't result in a multi million dollar law suit.

You seem to be unconcerned with the fact that costs can be expectd to rise dramatically over wht is predicted now, because that's "normal". Well I have news for you, the existing plan will be almost unaffordable if the price does not go up, and if it does go up dramatically we'll have to get lucky just to be able to pay the interest payments on the debt.

Do you realize how in debt we already are? We're so in debt that we don't even talk about how much we owe any more, we just talk about our deficit,(how much more we intend to borrow this year).

Tell me, if you owed a large fortune on your credit cards, and were having a hard time making the minimum payment, would you propose adding anything to your life that required you to borrow even more money?

I think we owe so much money right now that we can't afford to make any improvements at this time. What do you think?

And how do you think we're going to be able to pay for it?

as opposed to wrote:

The private sector is no better at controlling costs than the gvt is. The govt really can't do any worse than what is being done to us right now; the guarantee is that they will always be there.
Still curious to know if you think regulating drug prices in the US is tatamount to socialism.

Oh yes the government is much worse at cotrolling costs than the private sector and for good reason. When the private sector blows it they go bankrupt real fast,(execpt if they get bailouts with tax money), but when the governmnt overspends they just tax us more or print money.

I never suggested regulating drug prices, I only suggtested forcing the drug companies to sell their drugs to us at their lowest prices and allowing us to buy drugs from other countries if we can get them less expensively there. I'm believe all companies have to make a profit, inlcuding drug companies. But I don't believe that Seniors on fixed income should ever go without drugs that they could afford if they were allowed to buy them in other countries.