To all the Universal Healthcare Fans

[helptheSKINS]

Take a look at how our govt is handling Medicare and SS. Why would you want to add UHC to this?

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Let's say a giant asteroid was headed toward Earth right now and experts say it has a good chance of ending civilization as we know it. Let's also say that we've known about this asteroid for years but even as it gets closer and closer our leaders do nothing.

"Don't worry," they tell us, "The next administration will figure something out."

With the future of our country at stake, would Americans really sit back and tolerate that kind of inaction? Of course not -- we'd be sharpening our pitchforks and demanding answers.

Well there may not be a space asteroid heading toward us, but there is an economic one -- and the threat to our future is just as severe.

You might think that I'm talking about the recession (sorry: potential recession) or credit crisis, but I'm thinking bigger. Much, much bigger.

Let me give you three numbers that will put this economic asteroid into perspective: $200 billion, $14.1 trillion, and $53 trillion.

<LI _extended="true">$200 billion is the approximate total amount of write-downs announced so far as a result of the current credit crisis.

<LI _extended="true">$14.1 trillion is the size of the entire U.S. economy

<LI _extended="true">And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made.

continued................

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html

[SkinsHokieFan]

Yowza. I had a number of 43 trillion in unfunded liabilities

It is 53 trillion? And we keep digging and digging and digging

[Prosperity]

With the economy going in its current direction I think all plans to retool health care ought to be stayed until sunnier days. The transition by itself probably won't be cheap even if the end result is more efficient than what we have now.

[jbooma]

I work in healthcare do understand medicare quite well, and yes it has to be reformed.

For those who are huge universal healthcare proponents remember Medicare will be the system used.

[SkinsHokieFan]

And this thread title should say "To any fans of increasing spending at all over the next 40 years"

[Die Hard]

I work in healthcare do understand medicare quite well, and yes it has to be reformed.

For those who are huge universal healthcare proponents remember Medicare will be the system used.

Just curious.... what exactly do you DO in the healthcare field?

As I understand it... you're in the business of Electronic Medical Records right?

[gbear]

OK, you've picked one part of the problem.

You say it's too expensive. If you want me to believe that, I need to know too expensive compared to what? You look at only the federal outlays on healthcare. Most of us are already paying through the nose for healthcare. The only real questions are to whom do we pay and what do we get in return. What I want is answers that compare various UH plans to what we have now on these questions. Before you claim private is always cheaper, I know people paying $2k copays per month for one of the drugs I'm on. Having insurance didn't exactly make it affordable for them. I'm just lucky I can afford my $85 copays though it's going up due to patients who can't afford the infussions or the meds.

What we have now is neither affordable nor is it working, and most people seem to only account for gov. dollars in determining whether it's affordable (and it's still not). Can a UH score better?

You say that UH will cost more than what we currently can't afford now. I agree. However, if we are going ot have to remake the system anyways, what better time than to look at other systems around the world working better than what we have now? There was a plan in Washingont or Oregon about 10 years ago that tried to quantify what their "universal" healthcare could cover. It was based on a bang for the buck kind of approach. If we have X dollars we can cover immunization shots, regular doc visits, ER, and...However we will not have enough money to cover MS, Lou Gerigs, etc. For those you will need to purchase private insurance. It went over like a lead balloon. Ironically even as a person with a condition that may not be covered under such a plan, I like it...greatest good for the greatet numbers all the while using hte least resources. The economist in me liked it.

[DjTj]

I work in healthcare do understand medicare quite well, and yes it has to be reformed.

For those who are huge universal healthcare proponents remember Medicare will be the system used.

Medicare would be the model in any single-payer system, but it is unlikely the United States will ever adopt a single-payer system (unless things get really bad). None of the candidates are proposing a single-payer system, Hillary-Care was not a single-payer system, and states that have recently approved universal health care, like Massachusetts, use a multi-payer model.

Canada, Australia, and the UK are single-payer, but Germany, France, and Japan are multi-payer. With our long history of employer-provided insurance and a strong private insurance industry, I really can't see us moving to a universal single-payer system. Medicare will not be expanded to everyone; in most proposals, Medicare will be subsumed within a larger system.

With the economy going in its current direction I think all plans to retool health care ought to be stayed until sunnier days. The transition by itself probably won't be cheap even if the end result is more efficient than what we have now.

I don't think there is that strong a relation between government spending and the economy. It's not like government health care spending would all be thrown into a hole. All of that money would be spent on American patients, American doctors, American hospitals, and American insurance companies. If it can lower costs for everyone, it will be a net benefit for the economy.

The whole point of the original article is that if we do nothing, costs will rise astronomically, and our government will run out of money. We have to do something, and the goal should be to reduce costs in the end. We can see that countries like France and Canada have much lower health care costs than we do - why not try to learn something from them?

What's the alternative? Glenn Beck doesn't exactly offer any solutions.

And that leaves only us: We the People. Like every other crisis we face, it's up to us to save ourselves.

But how?

Be honest, no matter what side of the political aisle you're on, it's obvious that our financial deficit is dwarfed only by the deficit of trust we have in our leaders.

I'm willing to do the right thing for our future, I'm willing to sacrifice, but not when I believe that our leaders will do nothing but make the asteroid even larger.

He basically says that we must do something, but he doesn't know what that something is, and we should just keep doing nothing right now while blaming the politicians on our talk radio shows. Sound like a plan? :whoknows:

[jbooma]

Just curious.... what exactly do you DO in the healthcare field?

As I understand it... you're in the business of Electronic Medical Records right?

Correct, I help set up EHR's (electronc health records) and work on the business process with the facilities to make sure they are compliant with medicare, hippa, chap, jhaco regulations.

My main job is with a hospice, but I also have just started my own consulting business

What some people may not understand is in small practices the EHR is the main system since that is where all the records, billing, everthing is kept and stored.

Many large companies are completely screwing over some Dr's which is why we see a 60% failure rate right now.

The one thing I think Bush has done a great job is push healthcare to be more reliant on technology. This will end a lot of the administrative costs that are being pushed on everyone, and eventually bring costs down.

[jbooma]

Medicare would be the model in any single-payer system, but it is unlikely the United States will ever adopt a single-payer system (unless things get really bad). None of the candidates are proposing a single-payer system, Hillary-Care was not a single-payer system, and states that have recently approved universal health care, like Massachusetts, use a multi-payer model.

I believe in Hills plan she wants to enlarge medicare to be able to take on all the uninsured. Right now there are huge changes with medicare because of all the fraud. We are looking at going to more of a pay for performance type of system with the companies asking for reimbursement.

Lets be real here, any type of universal plan for the US will include commercial insurance companies, they are not going away. We will always have a choice in the plans and what I think the government can do is put some pressure on these companies to provide affordable plans across the board.

One point about Obama's plan is he wants the government to take on catastrophic illness which is the one thing that many people can not afford.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm waiting for all the R's to point out how much a drain on the federal government the war in Iraq is.............

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'm waiting for all the R's to point out how much a drain on the federal government the war in Iraq is.............

All things right now are a drain on the federal gov't

But you take out the Iraq war, and what that 53 trillion dollar asteroid turns into 52 trillion dollars

So what :whoknows:

That is more money then is in existance!

[jbooma]

With the economy going in its current direction I think all plans to retool health care ought to be stayed until sunnier days. The transition by itself probably won't be cheap even if the end result is more efficient than what we have now.

Excellent point

[jbooma]

I'm waiting for all the R's to point out how much a drain on the federal government the war in Iraq is.............

It is a huge drain, but to think lets keep spending that much money in these other areas is not the best thing to do. Especially with the history of our government and large socialized expenditures, social security, wellfare, medicare etc....

[Popeman38]

I'm waiting for all the R's to point out how much a drain on the federal government the war in Iraq is.............

How abaout an I to tell you that what we are spending in Iraq is less than a drop in the bucket when compared to this ocean. $1.2T saved would really basocally solve this crisis....:doh:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

How abaout an I to tell you that what we are spending in Iraq is less than a drop in the bucket when compared to this ocean. $1.2T saved would really basocally solve this crisis....:doh:

1.2 trillion... BUT, McCain wants to stay for another 100 years, at least.. right? do the math.

Anyway, article by GLENN BECK? Really?

No question SS and healthcare need to be fixed, but I'm not listening to anything from Glen Beck.

[DCSaints_fan]

$53 trillion spread out over how many years? Article doesn't say.

Social Security costs an infinite amount of money, if you assume the program lasts forever.

[helptheSKINS]

I write the same thing in every UHC thread and it never gets answered. Why are so many people in support of it when they have no idea what it will cost or what will be involved? Obama and Hillary don't know what it will cost, but they are out there selling it. Amazingly, many people are buying. Name one thing you would spend your personal money on without knowing what it costs and how it works. You would never make that purchase, so why is this different?

So many are ready to give the inept federal govt a blank check to run this program. "Don't worry, it'll be paid for by the rich and ending the war in Iraq" :laugh: :laugh: . The rich are already paying for a hell of a lot and the Iraq thing isn't happening. Even if exiting Iraq did pay for the first year, how about the remaining years? What budget will be cut the following year to pay for it? The answer is none, everyones taxes will be significantly raised to pay for more wasteful govt spending.

This article is an example of how our govt handles social programs. For some reason, millions want them to take on another one.:doh:

[DCSaints_fan]

Glenn Beck is full of ****. Social security obligations cannot exceed U.S. debt. Current U.S. Debt is $9 trillion, which is nowhere near $53 trillion.

[Midnight Judges]

I made the mistake of reading the article before I realized it was written by a hack. CNN has really stooped by hiring this Republican clown.

[The Sisko]

These are valid questions. However I agree that all the author is doing is complaining that the govt hasn't done anything to fix this issue. Guess what? They never do. That's just the way the Feds work. They only fix the things we all have our collective panties in a bunch about. Ooh, the gays want to get married, "Wahhh, c'mon pols, don't allow THAT!" And we the people must prefer reactive govt because we never seem to take enough interest in anything other than Brittany's latest breakdown or American Idol to become informed enough to have an informed opinion and demand better.

An example of this? See some of the posts above complaining that UH will cost too much. Guess what? Health costs are rising quickly and private insurance costs a lot more than Federal coverage. Left unchecked, healthcare costs will continue to rise and somebody will have to pay them. If industry continues to do so, American goods/services will become unaffordable to the rest of the world, putting us at a huge competitive disadvantage. Think U.S. industry will allow that to happen? :no: They'll simply reduce coverage or cut it altogether.

I'm not going to take the time to go into all this again. Just look up the prior exhaustive thread on the subject. There were a lot of good points made on both sides of the discussion.

[Prosperity]

"I don't think there is that strong a relation between government spending and the economy. It's not like government health care spending would all be thrown into a hole. All of that money would be spent on American patients, American doctors, American hospitals, and American insurance companies. If it can lower costs for everyone, it will be a net benefit for the economy.

The whole point of the original article is that if we do nothing, costs will rise astronomically, and our government will run out of money. We have to do something, and the goal should be to reduce costs in the end. We can see that countries like France and Canada have much lower health care costs than we do - why not try to learn something from them?"

I didn't read the article, but following that path of logic yes we would have to do something. But I always figured that increase in spending at specific points would stimulate the economy. So I guess the question is how we would increase that spending. I agree that a lot of my fears are very vague though.

"What's the alternative? Glenn Beck doesn't exactly offer any solutions. "

let people die... though I guess that could be the status quo

[Popeman38]

1.2 trillion... BUT, McCain wants to stay for another 100 years, at least.. right? do the math.

And of course you contention is that it will continue to cost $1.2T for the remaining years?

Anyway, article by GLENN BECK? Really?

So I assume you have never sourced a NYT editorial, because we know they would never publish a slanted article.:doh: Beck may sensationalize, but the point he is making with this particular article is, and has been, sound.

No question SS and healthcare need to be fixed, but I'm not listening to anything from Glen Beck.

I can play too! No question SS and healthcare need to be fixed, but I'm not listening to anything from Hillary Clinton!

[jbooma]

McCain wants to stay for another 100 years, at least.. right? do the math.

you are a fool if you believe that :doh:

[youngestson]

"Don't worry," they tell us, "The next administration will figure something out."

Don't we as voters share this?

After all we are the ones who let administration after administration off the hook allowing the problems to grow and fester.