Comments on: Big Business Backs Universal Healthcare

By: Ray T.

Ray T. — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:50:38 +0000

Without regard to the political arguments pro and con, I am not convinced that universal health coverage will result in universal health care because of supply-demand issues. Certainly, we do not want a scenario reminiscent of the health system debacles in Australia, Britain, and Canada. Health care reform is certainly desirable, but let’s not forget what a mess Medicare and Medicaid have become. Those two programs, plus Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, will bankrupt this country if our Congress cannot at some point muster the intestinal fortitude to address their runaway costs. We need health care reform, all right, but not a continuation of unsustainable entitlement programs that will break the back of our economy. After all, in the final analysis, someone has to pay for all this, and it is high time that we stop postponing the day of reckoning to future generations further and further removed from the generation of the beneficiaries.

By: SaneInSF

SaneInSF — Fri, 11 May 2007 16:33:52 +0000

Yes. My wife is a doc, and she sees it all the time in the ER. Dumbass rich kids wrecking cars and having to do expensive procedures and body scans because of their inebriation — and their insurance pays for it. And then she sees the poor migrant workers who can’t afford insurance and don’t get enough prenatal care because they can’t afford it.

For someone who’s been an expat since the 80′s, gee, you sound so qualified to talk about OUR healthcare system when you haven’t been around since Duran Duran hit the top of the charts.

By the way, do the French live longer than Americans? They might, but I’d like to see the data. This is the internet, and you can’t take statements like that at face value.

By: rachel

rachel — Thu, 10 May 2007 22:47:22 +0000

So… People do dumb, dangerous things because they figure,” What the hell, I’m insured”? And so a certain percentage of our population must live unhealthy, shortened lives because they might decide to do something stupid if they could be sure to afford their medical care? And people are over-medicated in France… But don’t they also live longer, on average, than we do in the USA? I’d take overmedication over a shortened lifespan any day.

(BTW, I’ve been an expat since the mid-eighties. I live in a country with a national healthcare scheme now, and I’ve lived in another one in the past. Based on my experience and observations, I say that your argument is pretty much hogwash.)

By: SaneinSF

SaneinSF — Thu, 10 May 2007 13:45:33 +0000

Jim S (and rachel),

I’m sorry to hear about your wife, but guess what, your family has been victimized by exactly what I said. Read what I wrote again — by having medical insurance, a lot of people can act really dumb (my driving drunk and hitting a tree scenario), get hurt and have insurance take care of them, which drives up demand for healthcare. And in the classic supply-demand equation, when demand goes up prices go up too, unless supply can catch up, which it hasn’t.

And you just paid for it last year. I hope your wife is ok.

If people had to think of the risks of their behavior, then people might think twice. Have you heard of the book “The Armchair Economist?” It’s famous for suggesting the best way to reduce accidents is to put a spear on the steering wheel pointed at the driver’s chest. Ironically, all that safety gear (seat belts, airbags, etc.) have made the roads even less safe because reckless driving doesn’t result in automatic death anymore.

It’s The Moral Hazard Popping Up Again.

Go to Canada and Britain, where they have to “ration” healthcare because there’s too much demand for the price. Or look at France, which is well known to be the most overmedicated country in the world. Even NPR, did a story on that.

By: rachel

rachel — Thu, 10 May 2007 08:59:26 +0000

I don’t understand this “overuse” argument. Who, besides hypochondriacs, goes to the doctor for fun and giggles?

By: Jim S

Jim S — Thu, 10 May 2007 04:47:10 +0000

Unfortunately for InsaneInSF there has in fact never been an ounce of proof concerning the overuse argument. One fatal flaw is that yes, you can still wind up with medical bills that look pretty hefty to the average person. If Insane wishes to argue that this is not so he will have to explain what caused me to hallucinate those medical bills I’ve received over the last year for my wife in spite of having what is considered pretty good insurance.

By: SaneInSF

SaneInSF — Wed, 09 May 2007 21:48:08 +0000

The problem with heathcare is that it’s been so embued with a moralism that it is nearly impossible to link usage with the cost of delivery. So, now we have a system of haves and have-nots where the haves (with insurance from providers, who cannot, like car insurance, charge more for being stupid, like drunk driving and hitting a tree requiring emergency care) overuse the system, driving up costs to where the have-nots (no insurance) cannot receive care.

Health insurance is the has created the classic Moral Hazard in economic terms — when people get stuff for basically “free” (no variable cost), they use a lot more of it. And universal coverage doesn’t address this primary issue — in fact it makes it worse, because more people will be getting fixed cost care, costing us even more!

Here’s a radical idea — let’s just get rid of health insurance all together. Costs will definitely come down.

By: Mracus

Mracus — Wed, 09 May 2007 17:22:49 +0000

How can anyone come to judgement on a plan that’s 10 pages long with little detail. I do not support the way Sacramento is rushing big issues through with very little public review or feedback. We now have the most stringent global warming emissions standards that were decided three days before the end of the last legislative session. What people don’t realize is that gasoline prices are going to climb even higher our energy bills are going to soar and then people will finally wake up and ask what the heck happened. Prison reform was just passed in Sacramento in an overnight deal between the Gov and legislative leaders that will do nothing to address the real problems with overcrowding, underfunding or rehabilitation. Let’s just hope this doesn’t happen with healthcare. If it does then we will all be paying through the nose and those that don’t have insurance will continue to use the ER and emergency services because having an insurance card does not change an individuals habits or solve the problem of access. Mind you no cost controls are included in any of these plans for addressing the insurance side of the equation so really what will happen besides subsidizing another government run program likely to run out of money or cost us taxpayers billions. Let’s think about this one before politicians act on something that costs us dearly.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Wed, 09 May 2007 17:16:28 +0000

I won’t rush to judgement on this one either. It sounds as if Schwarzenegger’s plan is not truly a “universal” health care plan, in the sense that it is not a single-payer government system (like “Hillarycare,” or a European system). It appears to be like Mitt Romney’s “mandated” health care, where everyone is required by law to be insured by a private health care provider.

By: Kevin Norte

Kevin Norte — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:57:03 +0000

It is not a free ride for Corporations. It reallignes they way a corporation contributes to health care. SAFEWAY and other major unionized corprations like the idea because it takes health benefits off the bargaining table because it would no longer a bargaining chip. From my understanding of it, it seems like an additional payroll tax that the major unionized employers are willing to pay because the tax would also be imposed on employers who do not provide such coverage. The risk is spread around more. Emergency ERs (which are closing right and left in California) are filled with the uninsured. Schwarzenegger’s plan is bold and I will have to read it in detail before I can say whether I support it or not. I have heard that ER care is more expensive but this plan is fueled by personal maintenance and responsibility and hopefully lessen the burdens on ERs.
I will not rush to judgment on this one.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 09 May 2007 12:06:38 +0000

Jimmy: In my hometown, there’s a well-known radio personality (no left-winger by any means, mind you) who has made an observation along these lines. He pointed out that automakers and international corporations choosing between the U.S. and other countries for building new plants tend to go to other countries with universal health care, for the very reason you’ve given – it’s cheaper for them, and doesn’t require them to have an entire division of the corporation devoted to managing a corporate health plan.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Tue, 08 May 2007 22:13:34 +0000

Of course big corporations are supportive of universal health care. This is nothing new, since we have an employer-based system to begin with. Universal health care would mean corporations wouldn’t have to subsidize their employee’s health care benefits, which cuts hugely into profits, and could instead pass the buck to the government.

By: nykrindc

nykrindc — Tue, 08 May 2007 18:47:54 +0000

Justin,

I don’t think it is so much about $60 billion for the war or for healthcare. Rather, it’s an issue of whether we are getting value for our money. I seem to recall a statistic that said that the US outspends most developed nations in terms of healthcare dollars (might have been from Sen. Clinton), but what we get for our money is not nearly as valuable.