It's easy for conservatives to understand... but only if they comprehend both sides of the issue!
Yes, the government will save money by providing universal health care. How it works is easy to understand — at least for those who try to comprehend both sides of the story. It all starts with something akin to a quote from an old motor oil commercial: “You can pay me now, or pay me later." It really isn’t that much different from investing a little now to avoid paying (or at least not receiving) a lot more later.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baritone
"The VA only serves about 5 million people, not 335 million, so no, it's not "socialized medicine" by definition, it's only available to a select few..."
In practice the VA IS tantamount to socialized medicine. The VA can serve as a very good model for a much broader health care program.
Actually, as far as I understand, the VA's services are not "free" to anyone. I currently owe them about $250. Every visit costs around $50. The cost of prescriptions has gone up to around $25 per scrip. I could actually purchase my medication at Wall Mart for $4. I choose not to as I want to keep everything under one roof and $25 for 3 months ain't gonna break my bank (at least not yet.)
Again - who gives a rat's ass about the insurance companies, Clav? Do you believe that any of them would shed a crocodile tear about your and your wife's predicament? If they all discontinued the offering of medical insurance owing to government competition, then most everyone would turn to the govt plan. The insurance companies would survive. Personally, I'd like to see the profit motive removed from health care as much as possible.
27 - Baritone
And another thing!
It is often the cost of providing medical insurance for employees that has driven many a small business to ruin. It is a huge burden on large corporations. Many companies are no longer offering group plans or have so reduced their contributions that employees find themselves paying most of the costs out of pocket. This would not be an issue for the majority of working Americans or the companies for whom they work if the government offered affordable medical coverage.
The really rich don't need no stinkin' health insurance. For them the cost of even an extended hospital stay is chump change.
B
28 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
You posted: "Twice you say that medicare is more efficient despite the fact that it deals mostly with old people who need more medical care. But administrative efficiency actually has no relationship to the costliness of treating the patients. The patient costs no more or less to treat just because the administrator is paid less or takes less of a cut."
Actually, you're wrong. Why? Because the elderly who as a whole need much more medical care also - because greatly-increased medical care demands that much more administrative processing and oversight. That, sir, is not a strawman but a FACT.
You also posted: "You also provide no basis for your assumption that the elderly cost more to treat than the young and healthy. The young and HEALTHY cost nothing to treat, but the young and unhealthy cost a great deal more than the elderly. The operations and treatment they need cost substantially more and treatments last substantially longer than with the elderly."
As Roger already pointed out, the number of elderly who require higher levels of medical care is FAR greater than that of the younger ones who do - and I do have a clue about this because my home is licensed as an Adult Family Home for up to six elderly residents, whereas I also take care of medically-fragile children. This is not proof of anything other than that I have a clue about the numbers of medically-fragile elderly as compared to the medically-fragile young.
No, Dave, the strawmen were of your own construction. Personally, I deal in fact.
When a household goes bankrupt, it's not only the family that suffers, but it's a greater load on local and state taxpayers, not to mention the manifold problems that arise when more people fall into poverty. That is a FACT.
While the amount the local and state government loses whenever a household goes bankrupt may not be precisely measurable, I feel quite comfortable in claiming that it measures in the thousands, perhaps in the tens of thousands...and when the ripple effect of increased poverty in a particular neighborhood is taken into consideration, it's easy to see how this can be in the millions...per neighborhood.
Good night, Dave.
29 - Glenn Contrarian
Good morning, Dave -
To illustrate the 'ripple effect':
In my housing development over the past two years the house prices dropped by at least 60K per house...and that means just under 1K less per year in taxes paid to the state. Our housing development is rather small - about 50 houses - so that means about a 50K in state and local taxes.
And that's just our housing development. That doesn't take into consideration the rest of the city and county and state. Nor does it account for the plethora of business that have closed down, which failures added that much more to the shortfall.
The Republicans' BIG deal this past election was the state's $5 billion dollar deficit. They wanted to claim it was the Dem governor's fault - but it's hard to balance the budget when all of a sudden you're taking in billions less in tax dollars.
And what does this have to do with health care? In at least HALF of all bankruptcies, health care costs were at least partially to blame.
Just think, Dave - if we had universal health care as EVERY other modern democracy on the planet does, a significant percentage (perhaps even half) of ALL the bankruptcies in this past economic downturn could have been avoided.
Our housing market wouldn't have taken as heavy a hit, and neither would our businesses which have to compete with one hand tied behind their backs - that hand being tied by paying for health insurance that overseas companies don't have to pay.
It's clear and plain for all to see, Dave - universal health care SAVES taxpayer money.
30 - Clavos
Actually, as far as I understand, the VA's services are not "free" to anyone.
Actually, they are. Priority 1 patients pay nothing -- no copays, either for services or for meds, and they are not means tested.
31 - Clavos
B-tone,
Priority 1 patients are those with a service-connected disability rating of 50% or higher (I think the bottom is 50%. It may actually be higher). And no, the VA is not socialized medicine, anymore than the congressclowns' medical plan is socialized medicine. In both cases, only a select group qualifies, so by definition it's not "socialized," since it's not available to everyone.
The VA isn't even insurance, really. It's a government owned and operated medical system for specific individuals, you can't, except under specific, special circumstances (primarily the absence of comparable and adequate VA care) go to a private doctor and get the the VA to pay for it.
32 - Clavos
The whole comparison of administrative costs between Medican't and private insurance is a strawman, because the enormous costs of fraud against the government programs is not included in their "administrative costs" by the GAO, but it should be, because it's the failure of CMS adequately to review claims that makes the government programs such tempting and easy targets for every grifter and con artist in the country.
33 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Your 'strawman' comment about fraud against government programs is itself a strawman.
Why?
1 - you're assuming that such fraud doesn't happen (or is lessened) against private insurance companies...and I think it's a mistake to think that the fraud committed against private insurance is any less at all.
2 - At least with the government health care, the fraud is not (or extremely rarely) committed BY the government...whereas it wouldn't be difficult for me to find examples of fraud perpetrated by private insurance companies - not to mention their thirteen-times-higher administrative costs.
Next time, look at the other side of the coin of 'strawman' accusations.
34 - Dan(Miller)
Here is a link to some more conservative trash about health care savings. Applied fairly and reasonably, I think that denying extravagant medical care to the very elderly and terminally ill is reasonable. In fact, I wrote something four or five years ago explaining how it could be done fairly, reasonably and even pleasantly. Since President Obama almost certainly reads BlogCritics daily, he will probably include my suggestions in his plan, as it evolves.
Dan(Miller)
35 - roger nowosielski
It's called triage.
36 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
Why wait that long? Didn't you ever see Logan's Run? Perhaps Obama can save everyone lots and lots of money with a more radical approach. A sort of preventative Happy Enders' Club. Why wait until people actually get old and sick and use up everyone's money on health care?
37 - Dave Nalle
You know what's even a more ridiculous argument? That private insurance companies cannot compete effectively against the government plan - compared to like putting a frog and an alligator in the same pool.
Roger, the concern would not be that they cannot compete, but that they will not be allowed to compete. That seems like the most serious threat.
Dave
38 - roger nowosielski
Well, Dave, I kind of covered this point with Clavos - it has to do with being able to spread the risk and therefore having sufficient enough pool in order for the insurance co to be able to provide coverage.
But the argument I heard voiced is that WOULD be allowed to compete with the government plan, except that they wouldn't be effective.
So my thinking was - why not have private insurance cater to those who can afford it. It is then that Clavos came up with the "spreading the risk" objection.
39 - Dave Nalle
Actually, you're wrong. Why? Because the elderly who as a whole need much more medical care also - because greatly-increased medical care demands that much more administrative processing and oversight. That, sir, is not a strawman but a FACT.
This is not the argument I was making and you were responding to. What I said was that your attempt to equate administrative efficiency with overall cost was erroneous. Having a more efficient administrator approving a prescription does not signficantly change the cost of a drug. Going after the root problem -- high costs is more important, and the problem with medicare is not the vaunted efficiency of the administrators, it's the waste, fraud and overbilling which inflates costs and then those inflated costs are ALSO passed on to paying private healthcare consumers.
As Roger already pointed out, the number of elderly who require higher levels of medical care is FAR greater than that of the younger ones who do - and I do have a clue about this because my home is licensed as an Adult Family Home for up to six elderly residents, whereas I also take care of medically-fragile children. This is not proof of anything other than that I have a clue about the numbers of medically-fragile elderly as compared to the medically-fragile young.
Again, you're attempting to sidestep the issue. The elderly DIE. Sorry, hard but true. Who do you think will cost more over their remaining lifespan, those medically fragile kids who may need ongoing care for 60 or more years or the 80 year old who needs care for a few more years? Come on, you CAN be logical if you try.
No, Dave, the strawmen were of your own construction. Personally, I deal in fact.
As demonstrated by the lack of any links to supporting evidence in your article.
When a household goes bankrupt, it's not only the family that suffers, but it's a greater load on local and state taxpayers, not to mention the manifold problems that arise when more people fall into poverty. That is a FACT.
I'll accept that, though some evidence would be nice. So we should be looking at ways to make healthcare more affordable rather than looking at ways to leave costs high and forcing other people to pay for it, effectively subsidizing the bloated costs of healthcare and insurance.
Just think, Dave - if we had universal health care as EVERY other modern democracy on the planet does, a significant percentage (perhaps even half) of ALL the bankruptcies in this past economic downturn could have been avoided.
All that does is socialize the expense. You don't want to solve the problem, you just want to make more people pay for it. Not a solution, a payoff.
Bah.
Dave
40 - Cindy
Having a more efficient administrator approving a prescription does not signficantly change the cost of a drug. Going after the root problem -- high costs is more important...
I agree.
It's time to STOP the govt giving monopolies to pharmaceutical companies via drug patents!
41 - Dave Nalle
So my thinking was - why not have private insurance cater to those who can afford it.
That might take the form of something like the Australian system where everyone has a voucher for basic healthcare from a choice of providers and then pays for supplemental service privately if they want it. That approach is workable and relatively reasonable if you bite the bullet and accept the idea of socializing healthcare expense. But it is NOTHING like what Obama is proposing.
Dave
42 - roger nowosielski
Well, that should be the way to go - to be able to accommodate the private sector without putting it out of business.
As a matter of fact, why shouldn't those who can well afford it be able to obtain a plan that is superior to the one that government's how to offer.
43 - roger nowosielski
"has to offer."
Besides, aren't certain kinds of insurance available only to the well to do?
44 - Clavos
@#33:
You're wrong, Glenn. First of all, private insurers are far more vigilant than the government bozos about identifying and prosecuting fraud. There's a reason why Medican't is targeted more than say, Humana; it's easier to get fraud past the unaccountable bureaucrats who have no incentive to do a good job and who for the most part don't.
You people who are nanny staters contradict yourselves in regard to the private insurers. On te one hand, you say they get rid of all patients who might be costly to them, and on the other you say that they get defrauded as much as the government clowns. If they are keeping such a sharp eye on the bottom line that they can effectively identify and get rid of high cost patients, they're also very much aware of and able to control fraud. They certainly have much more of an incentive (the need to make a profit) to do so.
45 - Clavos
As a matter of fact, why shouldn't those who can well afford it be able to obtain a plan that is superior to the one that government's how to offer.
Exactly what I've said all along, but as Dave points out, none of the proposals currently on the table include that possibility.
46 - Cannonshop
I'm still trying to figure out how Government competing against private enterprise isn't a conflict of interest.
'cause, you know, that's what the plan offered is.
Projected unintended consequences:
1. Employers will drop their health benefits and justify it as "The Government will do it." Especially in low-profit, hard-margin industries. The result is increased unemployment in a white-collar sector, and increased 'loading' on Government and Government sponsored providers.
Notably, we're in a deficit, and unemployed people don't generate tax revenues-they consume them.
2. Glenn, VA hospitals aren't all that 'uniform' in quality, and some of them are downright dreadful. Medicare Fraud is documented, Clavos isn't talking out his ass on this, and Gov't Regulators have DEMONSTRATED inability to cope with fraud in so many different industries (including finance and medicine) that you really OUGHT to be asking how they're going to handle an expanded list of customers.
Finally, have you REALLY looked at Canada's single-payer system? When a five-hour wait in the EMERGENCY ROOM is a "quick trip" you've got a problem. Six months to get a test is a PROBLEM.
The last time I went through a medical, I waited twenty minutes at the walk-in, and saw a doctor using Blue Cross-and it cost me a whopping fifteen bucks co-pay, and everything was finished in four hours. Notably, this is somewhat quicker than when I was in the Army (during peacetime) doing 'sick call', and unlike the Army doc, I actually got treatment.
Only fly in the ointment being that the doctor was almost unintelligible, being as I don't have a good ear for accents and even very intelligent people with english as a second language can be tough to decipher.
Wanna lower health-care? Get MORE DOCTORS. Americans pursuing "Doctor" as a career have been dropping in number for decades, we've got plenty of Lawyers, enough that I can get a Lawyer visit pretty cheap and it's easy to find someone who'll file the most ridiculous lawsuit a fevered brain can imagine, but we're in a state of IMPORTING our medical professionals.
I suspect a correlation there. I also suspect a correlation between foreign-born doctors wanting to practice in the U.S., instead of in nations and countries that have a greater share of "Public Health" laws and systems in place, and a correlation between Canadians coming "South" to deal with major illnesses rather than staying in their 'superior' system back home.
Call me crazy, but I think all this is going to do, is increase (enormously) our national debt while simultaneously dropping patient-care quality into the toilet and increasing burdens on those of us who still have jobs when all these 'reforms' are put in place.
47 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
You're building another strawman, claiming that HMO's are far more vigilant than the government in detecting fraud. Not only did you give NOTHING to back up that frankly unprovable claim, but you did not address my point.
The point is, can you point to large-scale fraud BY Medicare/Medicaid or their administrators? Perhaps, but not much.
On the other hand, can you point to large-scale fraud BY HMO's and private insurers? Sure can - LOTS. Just Google "list HMO fraud cases" and see what you find!
Lots and lots and lots - and some of those cases are BY HMO's overbilling Medicare - but is this a hit against Medicare, or is this a positive for the government-paid bean-counters who detected it and alerted the authorities?
48 - Bliffle
Clavos repeats the same lie:
#32 - Clavos
...the enormous costs of fraud against the government programs is not included in their "administrative costs" by the GAO,...
There are no ENORMOUS frauds against medicare (Clavos has repeatedly refused to provide any evidence of such).
49 - Bliffle
Clavos invents a new fantasy:
44 - Clavos
.....private insurers are far more vigilant than the government bozos about identifying and prosecuting fraud
Huh! Where did you get this? Citation, please. Or did you just imagine that?
50 - roger nowosielski
Here's one example for our doubting Thomas, today's story in fact.
51 - roger nowosielski
Why I really find ridiculous, bliffle, that we all let you get away with your theorizing and offering your opinions on the state of the economy, and the nation, not to mention your interpretation of history, while you refuse to accept even the most commonsensical propositions without an array of statistical and god knows what kind of evidence.
Are you always committed to this kind of double standard, or is it just a recent malady you've contracted, and hopefully a temporary as well, so that we may overlook it?
52 - Dan(Miller)
The solutions are so obvious that I am shocked no one has mentioned them:
First, we tax the health care benefits provided by private employers (well, that's been mentioned and is apparently "on the table").
Then, we start taxing private insurance companies based on their profits (whoops, we already do that).
Then, we give the Government insurance company tax credits based on the taxes collected from private insurance companies and those collected from the greedy bastards whose employers provide medical benefits (whoops, I forgot: the Government insurance company won't have to pay taxes, so I guess the best thing is just to give them the money, in the interest of having a level playing field).
Dan(Miller)
53 - Clavos
The point is, can you point to large-scale fraud BY Medicare/Medicaid or their administrators? Perhaps, but not much.
No Glenn, I can't, nor did I even allege it.
I CAN and have, pointed to large-scale fraud against Medican't over and over again, and from a variety of sources, including FBI reports and investigative journalism sources.
I'm not going to repeat them again; you've all seen them, but here's a new one, from today's Miami Herald. It's a part of their ongoing series about the enormity of the Medicare fraud problem, here in Miami, and all over the country.
There are also reports On the Kaiser Foundation's Medical News Today website and in The Wall Street Journal.
54 - roger nowosielski
Your first link doesn't work, Clav. Your second covers the same story I linked to in #50.
55 - Cindy
Mr. 'Courteous to a Fault',
While I find your posts hilarious, I was told it's all about self-respect or seduction or something.
hmm, I'm probably confused, considering the case at hand, maybe it was about self-seduction.
56 - roger nowosielski
What I find hilarious that you keep on trying to have a one-way conversation.
57 - Cindy
Yes, I AM trying to have a one-way conversation. But it's hard to do when you won't stop answering me. lol
(See, I'm not actually talking TO you. Get it?)
58 - roger nowosielski
But can't get the subject of me off your mind somehow.
Are you so impoverished that you can't get me off your mind?
59 - Dan(Miller)
Jesus H. Christ! Opps, I mean "Great Zeus!" Oh, never mind; nobody listens anyway.
Zaphod and Marvin
60 - Clavos
Dan(Miller):
Wanna have an online spat?
They're all the rage* these days...
[*Pun most definitely intended.]
61 - Dan(Miller)
Clav,
Nah. I am too old and feeble and you would probably beat me up. How about a virtual pie throwing contest? I challenge you to strawberry tarts* at ten paces.
Dan(Miller)
*Clinton, Edwards and Sanford might join the fun; let's bring lots of tarts.
62 - Clavos
Tarts!!!
Oooh, what fun!
I'm off to South Beach instanter to find some.
Delicious!
63 - Cindy
Now that would be fun to watch.
64 - Zaphod Beeblebrox
Watch?? I'm gonna pray, Man!
Know any good religions?
65 - Clavos
Hey, Zaph,
When did you change yer name??
66 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
You posted: "I CAN and have, pointed to large-scale fraud against Medican't over and over again, and from a variety of sources, including FBI reports and investigative journalism sources."
Ah, so it's BLAME THE VICTIM, huh? You're blaming Medicare for fraud committed AGAINST Medicare, and ASSUMING that it's somehow Medicare's fault!
Doesn't work, Clavos. Blame the PERPETRATORS, not the victim.
67 - Zaphod Beeblebrox
Dan(Miller),
I was once in a spelling bee on Jaglan Beta, which is the second planet in a star system near the Axle Nebula. (just in case you needed to know that)
Anyway, one of the words I got was 'oops'. There was an earthling entered and he spelled it 'opps'. As soon as he did, he disappeared into thin air*.
There was an announcement...something about 'opps' meaning, "please tele-transport me directly to Panama, and make it snappy."
*It's some sort of a diet thing, don't ask. I much prefer fat air, myself.
68 - Clavos
Sorry, Glenn that argument doesn't wash.
First of all, as custodian of taxpayer funds in amounts in the billions, it has a fiduciary duty to safeguard those funds, a responsibility it obviously can't handle in light of how ridiculously easy it is to pull the wool over their eyes.
Victim, schmictim. If the mendicants weren't such inept bozos, Medican't wouldn't be such a pushover to steal from.
Medicare, however, does more than simply be a "victim." It's purchasing agents are downright stupid when they do such things as pay $5K for a wheelchair anyone off the street can buy from the same manufacturer for $2.5K. I have that documented, because, when I told the bozos that I could save the taxpayers $2.5K by buying the chair myself, their bureaucrat answer was, "No, you can't, we have to use authorized suppliers."
Like most government agencies, they're inept bumbling, and stupid failures.
69 - roger nowosielski
#66,
But Glenn. Frauds committed against Medicare are a reflection, are they not? of the vulnerability of the system. It does need strengthening up.
70 - Dan(Miller)
Zaphod -- Alas, you are mistaken. "opps" is philosopher shorthand for "I think not." You will recall what happened to Descartes when he said those words.
Dan(Miller)
71 - Clavos
Did anyone ever find him after that?
72 - Dan(Miller)
Clav,
No, sad to say, he wasn't; he was promptly declared persona a gratin and was never heard from again. You will have to ask Zaphod whether he wound up in the good place to which all lost fountain pens boldly go. I don't no ... o
p
p
s
Damn! It's dark here.
73 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
No, YOUR point doesn't wash. Why? Because it was YOUR boys who passed legislation that prohibits Medicare from negotiating better prices. THAT, sir, is why Medicare - unlike the VA - winds up paying a LOT more than they should.
And again, like it or not, you're still blaming the victim - and you are still ignoring the FACT that the administrative costs of Medicare are one-thirteenth that of private companies.
And wait for my NEXT reply in a few minutes, where you'll get a clue on how pervasive corruption is on the private side.
74 - roger nowosielski
Do tell!
75 - Clavos
Because it was YOUR boys who passed legislation that prohibits Medicare from negotiating better prices.
I have no boys, Glenn, I'm not even sure who "my boys" are supposed to be.
But in any case I wasn't talking "negotiating prices," Glenn. If Medcrummy just paid street prices like all the rst of us, I would be happy, but no, they pay premiums for goods (and so does the VA, BTW. I have a blood pressure machine from them that they paid twice as much as I would have had to, buying at retail from my local pharmacy.
The whole shit-ass government does that, and you know it.
Just for the record, I belong to no political party, and I have never given so much as a dime to any politician - ever.
And I never will. Bad enough they steal my money on April 15th.
the FACT that the administrative costs of Medicare are one-thirteenth that of private companies.
I guess you believe that if you say something often enough, people will buy it. One more time: only because they don't count the fraud, waste and overpayments.