Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

uclayoda87 (29.30)

Universal Health Care – The Final Solution to the Social Security and Medicare Problems - Part 2

Recs

12

May 11, 2009 – Comments (16) | RELATED TICKERS: SCI

Obama says health overhaul could save trillions

By Caren Bohan Caren Bohan – 1 hr 16 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama aims Monday to build support for a broad overhaul of U.S. healthcare by highlighting efficiency measures which he says could save trillions of dollars.

The push comes as the White House raised its forecast for the U.S. budget deficit for this year by $89 billion to $1.84 trillion. The higher estimate may add to challenges Obama faces in getting congressional approval for his agenda.

Obama has invited several large trade groups, including the American Medical Association, America's Health Insurance Plans and the American Hospital Association, to discuss wringing savings from the health system.

At a 12:30 p.m. EDT event, the trade groups will pledge to reduce the growth of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually through more efficient practices, according to White House officials.

The cost savings would be achieved through steps such as streamlining paperwork and changing the way hospitals deliver and bill for services to patients.

Obama aides said that with costs expected to rise dramatically as the U.S. population ages, the slower growth rate would save $2 trillion over 10 years.

"We cannot continue down the same dangerous road we've been traveling for so many years, with costs that are out of control, because reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait," Obama will say, according to excerpts provided to reporters.

"That is why these groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment.

"Over the next ten years, from 2010 to 2019, they are pledging to cut the growth rate of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year -- an amount that's equal to over $2 trillion," Obama's advance text said.

MILLIONS OF UNINSURED

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius established an office of health reform at her agency Monday, mirroring an office already set up within the White House.

A statement said the new office would "advance legislation and take immediate actions to cut costs, assure quality and affordable health care for all Americans, and guarantee Americans can choose their doctor and their health plan."

Revamping the healthcare system and expanding coverage for an estimated 46 million uninsured Americans is a top domestic priority for Obama. He is pushing the Democratic-led Congress to pass a measure by year's end.

The industry and lawmakers broadly agree that the health system needs to be improved but big differences remain on how.

Obama's proposal would establish a new government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. The administration says that would help cut costs by introducing competition and covering the uninsured.

Republicans and insurers oppose a government plan, arguing that it would undermine the private healthcare market.

Improving efficiency is one of the least controversial aspects of the Obama plan. The government would see savings if the efficiencies lower costs in the huge Medicare system, an existing program for older Americans.

The United States has one of the world's most expensive healthcare systems, despite the high number of uninsured. Studies show it lags other developed nations on indicators of healthcare quality, including life expectancy and infant mortality.

The effort to paint healthcare reform as a money-saving initiative comes as critics label his hefty domestic agenda fiscally irresponsible. But Obama counters that high budget deficits are a legacy of President George W. Bush, a Republican.

Some ideas to be highlighted at Monday's White House event would require legislation.

Lawmakers are already considering basing payments to doctors and hospitals on the quality of care given, not just the number of procedures and treatments.

Health-policy experts say big savings could be achieved by cutting down on unnecessary treatments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090511/pl_nm/us_obama_healthcare_4

Universal Health Care – The Final Solution to the Social Security and Medicare Problems

April 29, 2009 – Comments (18) | RELATED TICKERS: HMA , THC , MDTH

Ask the simple question:  How do you provide insurance coverage to all of the uninsured and save $2,000,000,000,000.00 without:  A.  Not paying for the services. or  B.  Not providing real care?

I suppose you could draft all of the medical care providers, but this would amount to slavery.  And if he is willing to do this for the medical industry, then are lawyers, professional athletes, actors/entertainers, and any other well compensated groups safe from mandatory national service.

For those who doubt "The Final Solution", take the time to think of a way to achieve the President's goal of saving $2 Trillion without cutting services to the elderly.

Quotes from part 1 of this blog:

"So how does Universal Health Care fix Social Security and Medicare?  By helping to create a younger healthier population who are not old enough to receive Social Security and are not ill enough to require expensive medical care."

"So if the President tells you that Universal Health Care will make us a healthier nation in 4 years, believe him!  If he tells you that Universal Health Care will save the government money in the long run, believe him!  If he tells you that the ranks of the unemployed (retired Americans) will decrease during his first term, believe him!  Just don’t ask for details, you'll sleep better.  Denial I'm sure helped the Germans durring World War II!"

The President's idea is not new:

 Logan's Run

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WUUnc1M0TA

Enjoy the movie, like Atlas Shrugged, we are living the dream.

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html  

 

Service Corp International (SCI)

The Company is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. Its funeral service and cemetery operations consist of funeral service locations, cemeteries, crematoria, and related businesses.

http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/SCI.aspx

Check out is chart, it looks like another growing industry!

 

16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Good Bye Real Care. 1/6 of the United States market is now health care. Another industry to big to fail. Oh for the days when health care was not for profit when the cost for health care was low. Make health care for profit and create a crisis.

Report this comment
#2) On May 11, 2009 at 1:09 PM, motleyanimal (82.95) wrote:

Will there be a carbon tax on cremation? I smell a good source of revenue here.

Report this comment
#3) On May 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM, uclayoda87 (29.30) wrote:

For another movie:  The Loved One (1965)

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/30366/The-Loved-One/overview

motleyanimal 

This last movie proposed to clean out a cemetary by using rockets to send the dead into space.

Report this comment
#4) On May 11, 2009 at 1:44 PM, uclayoda87 (29.30) wrote:

lquadland10

Health care was always "for profit", it's just that technology and drugs have created such high expectations which no one is willing to give up.  If we only had the tools that we had 40 years ago, then the cost would be much less, but outcomes would be much poorer.

Consider treatment for an acute myocardial infarction:  Conservative medical therapy prior to thrombolytic therapy - death rate was about 20% to 25%.  With thrombolytic therapy - death rate was 10% to 15%.  With primary angioplasty/stenting - death rate 2% to 5%.

The example above is a very common problem.  The success of keeping people alive following a myocardial infarction has helped increase the number of people with chronic heart failure, which is the number 1 DRG (admission code) for hospitalization in the US.

Report this comment
#5) On May 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Gemini846 (51.33) wrote:

The United States has one of the world's most expensive healthcare systems, despite the high number of uninsured. Studies show it lags other developed nations on indicators of healthcare quality, including life expectancy and infant mortality.

I love people who quote this statistic. I wonder what it looks like if you remove underprivildged classes that flood our shores daily who don't live in places like Sweeded and Austria.

Infant mortality and life expectancy are more linked to living conditions than a lack of care. The type of care for instance that empoverished persons on medicaid get is an example of the type of care we would all get. (Some would argue its not that different from what HMO holders get). However the living conditions in those homes, nutrition, substance abuse, family support isn't something the government can change.

Better doctors would simply STOP taking the federal funds unless they were forced to. They would cater only to the rich who can pay a reasonable rate out of pocket. The rest of them would likely go into cosmetic medicine such as weight loss.

There are 2 practical solutions which could be enacted nearly immediatly.

1) Make hospitals and clinics bill. No more reams of paper and bills from different departments of the same hospital. The hospital contracts with a doctor to provide services. This would reduce costs and make costs more transparent.

2) Deregulate how insurance is provided. It is unfortunate that health insurance isn't sold like car insurance. The fact is that most minor claims aren't reported to car insurance companies. Why? Because they'll jack up your rate. They don't have that option right now because they have to cover everyone who works for a certain employeer. As a purchaser of such services I am of course locked into what my employer has to offer. Take it or leave it.

I pay $375 + FSA a month for a family HMO which is rather cheep. However my friends and my sister don't have that as an option. Their plans cost a lot more. One thing is consistant. None of us have the option to change. Perhaps I want a plan with a higher deductable and lower premium. Shouldn't I be able to choose that?  That's what the McCain refundable tax credit was all about. We need portability. Ever paid COBRA? Its more than a mortgage.

There are a LOT of other issues that can be worked out. I don't mind having a medicaid program or a program for the seriously ill who it would be foolish for the insurance companies to be expected to handle. There is nothing wrong with all of us paying for those people as a moral obligation to society. Those cases are few and far between and honestly spread out over 300M of us woudln't cost that much.  $100 from each of us is $30B

Report this comment
#6) On May 11, 2009 at 2:08 PM, uclayoda87 (29.30) wrote:

Gemini846

Your proposal has more merit than the President's plan, which is more hope than reality.

Report this comment
#7) On May 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM, motleyanimal (82.95) wrote:

COBRA would have cost me $526 per month after I left my job in 2006. As things went, I opted for a high deductible plan for a single person which runs $194 per month along with an HSA which saves some tax money. It's not a very good plan and really only useful for catastrophic illness and injury. I would like something better, either to opt into Medicare early or something more comprehensive for $250 to $300 with an HSA.

Report this comment
#8) On May 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM, devoish (98.07) wrote:

Funny. The only people I have heard arguing for a "Logans Run" solution were also pointing out that most medical expenses were incurred in the last two months of life. They were suggesting that without Government intervention private insurers would be free to cut costs that did not produce better outcomes. Of course, they were forgetting that if you allow an insurer to decide that a treatment would not help enough, on average people would lose two months of their lives. A few people will lose much more, whether a Dr, Government or Private Insurer makes the decision.

I prefer to put that decision in the hands of someone who does not profit if I die quicker.

Kathleen Sebelius, the head of Dept Health and Human Services earns $193,000 each year.

Stephen Hemsley, CEO of United Health Care is paid $9.5 million, unless his company does well financially. Then he gets more.

That is a lot of motivation to increase salary by cutting benefits and raising costs.

Report this comment
#9) On May 11, 2009 at 3:13 PM, uclayoda87 (29.30) wrote:

devoish

That's a good argument for cutting out the insurance companies, which would save some money, but once you leave it to the government to run the insurance, you would still need to put limits on coverage or reimbursement, otherwises the system would go bankrupt very quickly.  Do you really believe that a single payer would provide good services for everyone and cost $2 Trillion less?

Report this comment
#10) On May 11, 2009 at 3:22 PM, uclayoda87 (29.30) wrote:

motleyanimal

I would like something better, either to opt into Medicare early or something more comprehensive for $250 to $300 with an HSA.

I would suspect that if there was demand for such a product and it was profitable for an insurance company to offer it, then it would be available.  I have also opted for a high deductible plan that only covers major expenses.  The smaller stuff, which is still expensive, I pay out of pocket.

Report this comment
#11) On May 11, 2009 at 11:07 PM, devoish (98.07) wrote:

Do you really believe that a single payer would provide good services for everyone and cost $2 Trillion less?

Compared to any private insurer plan that provides "good services for everyone"? Over ten years? Easily. Ask Sweden, Germany, France or Canada.

Report this comment
#12) On May 11, 2009 at 11:56 PM, devoish (98.07) wrote:

Is my guess possible? I decided to research what the actual cost difference was between insuring 300million Americans, less 50 million uninsured, equals an insured population of 250mil. vs an equal size universal insured population. According to the figures from the Nationmaster database the United States spent $1,847,088,000,000. on healthcare in 2004.

The total population of Germany, France, the U.K, Canada, Swizerland and Denmark is also 250 million.

In 2004 Germany spent $288,722,000,000, France spent $211,304,000,000. U.K. spent $173,904,000,000. Canada spent $100,221,000,000. Swizerland spent $50,139,000,000 and Denmark spent $19,480,000,000.

Total combined spending in 2004 is $843,770,000,000.

One Trillion less in 2004 than the USA spent to insure the same number of people.

So yeah, lets go single payer, include everybody, and save 8 Trillion over ten years compared to the public/private model we have now.

Report this comment
#13) On May 12, 2009 at 11:04 AM, uclayoda87 (29.30) wrote:

Included below are interviews and video clips of Daniel Hannan, a member of the British Parliament who has seen first hand what  devoish and others are proposing - State Run Universal Health Care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-gkXANZ_Q

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sifofmgRBo&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc9TVlzdEsc&feature=related

Report this comment
#14) On May 13, 2009 at 6:54 PM, AbstractMotion (54.21) wrote:

Logan's Run is right.  I doubt it'll be that grim, but I don't think the seniors are going to be able to force anyone entering the workforce now to pay for their retirement and healthcare like they're expecting.  The government has spent 20 years wasting your money on other crap, it's tragic, but the fact that it took 20 years and its still on going today should tell a lot of people they failed to act.  We're also comming off an unprecedented period of overconsumption and excess, which is likely to rack up several trillion more in legacy costs over the long term.  The math has been done, there isn't even any argument about this stuff anymore.  The government can't inflate it's way out of this problem either.  I don't know how seniors can continue to justify the lions share of the federal budget each and every year and expect to continue getting it while things continue to get less and less affordable for the working class.  Our economy is almost totally built on debt at this point too, which is of course borrowing from the future.  Why on earth would we continue paying for all this?  So far we've got massive debt, inflation, an oil shock, global warming and a massive trade imbalance to deal with.  There's been no great war to justify it all either, I'm kind of curious what card the boomers are going to try and play to get everyone under the age of 30 to pay for this system for the rest of their lives.

 

That said, you have to love how our government is so concerned about this issue but has made no attempt to actually curb spending or actually legislate away it's power to borrow against social security funds.  Who knows we'll probably see a 75-85% tax rate on the wealthiest Americans who will be prevented from ever drawing from this system in order to pay for it.  A solution that is somehow much more ethical then admitting a generation people failed to exercise their rights as consumers and citizens for the last 30 years drunk on prosperity that was built on their childrens money.  If that's not egalitarianism I don't know what is.

 

Report this comment
#15) On May 14, 2009 at 2:09 AM, uclayoda87 (29.30) wrote:

I heard on the news today that the administration was hoping to have the Universal Health Care plan enacted by Christmas.  Boy, would that be a lump of coal.  This would likely be a typical government fix (expensive and inefficient) which they would probably call HARP to rhyme with the other big government power grabs.  HARP would also be symbolic of the expected outcomes of a poorly thought out health care reform.

HARP = Healthy American Renaissance Program

Report this comment
#16) On November 03, 2013 at 4:13 PM, uclayoda87 (29.30) wrote:

November 02, 2013

Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients

You would think that when your party is burying a hole that is getting harder and harder to get out of, you wouldn't want to that hole get deeper faster.  But here is Kathleen Murphy, Democrat running for the House of Delegates against Barbara Comstock, telling a forum in Great Falls that she believes it should law to force doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients.  Forced by government decree, mind you.  A birdie sent me this:

FYI last night at the Great Falls Grange debate, Democrat delegate candidate Kathleen Murphy said that since many doctors are not accepting medicaid and medicare patients, she advocates making it a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.  She did not recognize that the payments are inadequate to cover the doctors' costs.  She also did not recognize there is a shortage of over 45,000 physicians now and that it is forecast to be 90,000 in a few years.  Democrats appear to want to make physicians slaves of the state, but Democrats don't admit they would just drive more doctors out of practice into retirement and other occupations.  The Obamacare law and regulations are causing millions of people to lose their health insurance, drop many doctors and hospitals. The HHS internal forecast is 93 million Americans would lose their health insurance due to the Obamacare law and rules about adequacy of insurance.Many more people will be uninsured.   The penalties for being uninsured start at $95 per year, but the penalties can't be collected by the IRS if a person does not have a tax refund to attach.  The out of pocket costs required by Obamacare's Silver Plan for a non-smoking mother and father with two children making a gross before income taxes of $50,000 (roughly average salary for VA) would be $13,765 per year including the deductible of $10,400.  That's 28% of their gross income -- not very affordable and about the same as guidelines for a mortgage payment.  For such a family making $100,000 of gross income, The cost would be $21,431 including the deductible of $12,700, or 21% of gross income.   With such high deductibles doctors are stuck with trying to collect cash from the patients, even at regulated charge structures.  Thus is makes sense for primary care doctors not to participate in Obamacare, medicare and medicaid.  They should encourage patients to participate in Concierge Care and insurance programs run by the doctors themselves with patients who can do simple math.  Patients can take out catastrophic insurance with high deductibles for major surgeries.  Tax deductability for individual medical savings accounts would make health care more affordable.  
The head of Obamacare programs, Berwick, loves the socialized medical system in the UK, but never mentions that malpractice insurance is minimal.  In the UK, panels of doctors review and approve malpractice awards, rather than emotional juries misled by trial lawyers.  Malpractice reform like this with caps on malpractice awards would go a long way in making health care affordable.I hope physicians rise up and speak out for common sense, protecting quality medical care in the US and giving patients freedom to choose

 

THIS along with the fact that Terry McAuliffe has already said he'd go to the government shutdown mat to get a state exchange in Virginia.  Unbelievable.  Combine the chaos of thousands of people across Virginia losing their health insurance, we are going to add to that on the state level by forcing doctors to accept patients they can't afford to help?  Unbelievable.  Dark days are ahead, but there is still time.    Three days to make sure this does not happen.  

Democrats in Virginia will drive up health care costs, drive doctors out of the state, and then drive health care costs up even more because there will not be enough doctors practicing in the state.  

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement