Posts Tagged ‘universal’

Universal Health Care potential

June 6th, 2011

Before starting my article I will like to say a few words about health.

“Every human being is the author of his own health or disease.”
“He, who has health, has hope. And he, who has hope, has everything.”
“It is health that is real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver.”

Just about everyone had heard Obama wants to implement a universal health care system where everyone would be covered. Sounds good, right? Well it may not be as good as it sounds. Some of the ideas coming from the house and senate leave me shaking my head.

First to implement such a program would cost billions if not trillions or more. Where is the money coming from? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are practically bankrupt right now. Many of the younger people believe they will not even be able to collect social security when it is their turn to apply, because the money just won’t be there.

If the government insists on creating a universal health care program that will cover everyone, we would be in big trouble. Obama says it will be “affordable”. It will be so affordable that everyone will be forced to have some type of health care insurance. One of the problems that I just pointed out above, is that it is not going to be affordable, since the government will have to find some way to cover the costs. They have ideas to cut back on medicare/medicaid in order to help finance the program. The problem with this is it would hurt many of the people already on medicare/Medicaid. Also, they are talking about raising taxes on everyone, which makes affordable, not all that affordable. How are they helping people pay for health care when they are raising taxes to cover it. It will be like they are hitting us twice, or paying for the full cost of the health care program through taxes.

On a personal level, we also have to question exactly what does the government consider affordable? I’m afraid affordable is not really going to be affordable. If this affordable health care is run like medicare and Medicaid there would be an income cut off point. Many times the cut off point is too low. Too many times I have seen families on welfare, and as soon as they make a dollar over the income cut off point they are dropped. When they are dropped, they now have a problem of how to pay rent, utilities, and cover the food and medical welfare use to cover.

Right now, the families do have a choice to drop medical when it means the difference between buying food and other necessities verses medical. If they are forced to buy health insurance at a higher cost, these families now have a much higher risk of not being able to afford everything.

The health care could be based on your income like gas and electric assistance is. They look at your income, mortgage, and utility costs, and say you have to pay x amount. In the mean time you are sitting there groaning with your guts wrenching and twisting inside of you wondering how the heck are you going to make that payment. They did not take into consideration of all your bills, buying gas to drive, the rising cost of daily necessities. You may not need the Internet or TV, but you do need to pay for car insurance, food if not on food stamps, gas for the car, toiletries, needed cleaning supplies, and they figure that nothing breaks down or wears out in your house or car.

The question really needs to be asked is how are they defining affordable. If people are already struggling to make ends meet can they even afford so call “affordable” health care? What about those people who are doing fairly well, but health care insurance could make a difference between going into financial difficulty or staying well off. We don’t know yet how much this affordable health care for those who are not considered poor will actually cost. Will it be , , , 0 or more per person in a family? This could very pull down more people from the middle class into the poor class with the increased cost to the family and the potential tax raise to help cover the new federal program.

How are they going to enforce this? I have heard ideas slinging around from fining anyone who isn’t insured to garnishing your wages. Maybe they will take your portion out of your pay like they do with social security. Of course they won’t change any of the income guidelines for assistance programs that are based on gross, before tax, income. Now those people will feel the squeeze even more. Now they will have less money to pay for their bills with out any allowance from the assistance programs that more of their pay is being taken away.

If we are forced to take this health insurance, will we have a co-pay on top of everything else? Will we have to to go the doctor for a regular visit, or else? What if we couldn’t afford the prescriptions the doctor gives us if needed? What if we don’t agree or wish to use alternative medicines? Will we be able to? Will this “affordable” insurance undercut the doctor’s say on an expensive treatment or surgery? Will they say we can’t have this or that surgery? That treatment is too expensive, so you have to take that less expensive treatment even though it will not be real efficient.

Maybe the question should be is it constitutional for them to force everyone to have to buy insurance? Every time the government forces us to do something, it erodes away our freedom that much more. They will gain more control over us and our lives. Creating a governmental “affordable” health care plan, will more than likely create a huge medical data base on each and every individual in the system. There are concerns that private insurance will not be able to compete with a governmental health care plan, and that it will put private insurance out of business. That will not only take away our choice of what type of health care we want, but will also create a file on every individual that the government can tap into when ever they want. Neither do we know how secure it will be against hackers or others who will want access to it.

Universal Health Care? NO!

June 2nd, 2011

Universal Health Care may not be the answer to our problems. Other countries, Canada and Britain, being the most obvious, have not done well with universal health care.

Let’s look at what is wrong with the current solution.

* Pre-existing conditions can make health insurance unavailable or unaffordable.
* Forty-Five million people are not covered by a plan. (That number is not true, but we will use it for now.)
* People with health issues must pay more to get coverage.
*Preventive medicine is not practiced like it should be.
*Duplicated, inaccurate medical records are inefficiently handled because they are not electronic. Too many mistakes, excessive tests, and misdiagnosis are being made as a result of poor quality data.
* People view health care as a health coverage plan instead of a catastrophic insurance plan
* Third-party pay system. When you go to the hospital for an operation, you don’t check the bill you receive when you check out. Why? You don’t care. It’s not your money. An insurance company, a third-party, has paid the bill for you.

If I were the person in charge, here’s what I would suggest:

If you opt-in to an insurance plan within a prescribed period of time, then pre-existing conditions would not be considered. For example, when you turn twenty-one, you need to purchase your own health plan. We would use attained age to determine the premium quote. There is no question that older people use more health services than younger, healthier people.)
* We can argue about how many people are uninsured, but whatever that number is, everyone has to have coverage. A friend’s blog shows that the real number is closer to 11,260,150 only 3.75% of the population of the US, not the near 16% according to the political left.
* All children up to the age of twenty-one would be covered by plan that would cost about per month per child. (Illegal aliens would be required to purchase their own insurance coverage at the same rates as citizens of the US.)
* H S A (health savings account type plans, also called high deductible health plans,) would be the only type of plans available. Catastrophic plans should address preventive medicine. The free annual physical examination would be provided. This extent and depth of the physical exam would be determined by the doctor. I would suggest that the HSA type plans have a deductible in the range of ,000 for an individual and ,000 for a family. Certainly, these can be different numbers, but they need to be high deductibles. After the deductible is met, the insurance company would cover 100% of the costs. All covered expenses go toward meeting the deductible ? including medications.
* If you compare what people want in their health plans to what they get with their auto insurance, you will see the difference. Your auto insurance doesn’t have, oil changes, tire changes, car washes and other related items. Auto insurance simply helps you pay for a catastrophic event – a car wreck. Health plans should be catastrophic in nature, but after the deductible is met, then the company would pay 100%.
* All people, whether they are dealing with health issues or not, will pay the same premium.
* All medical records would be required to be electronic. There would be a medical database that all doctors and hospitals would be able to access that contains your health conditions, health history, medications taken and other related medical data.
* Get rid of third-party payer system.

What will happen if the government plan is adopted?

“The new government health plan that many politicians support would compete with private plans. The government would set benefits, premiums, commissions and payment rates.

The Lewin Group estimates more than 118 million people would shift to the government plan almost overnight, resulting in more than 2 out of every 3 Americans in a government plan. The reason for this dramatic shift is that the government would continue to use Medicare payment rates, so premiums would likely be 30 percent less expensive than current plans.

With more Americans under a government plan, health care system costs would shift from the government program to private plans. As a result, private premiums would skyrocket, making private health insurance unaffordable for most. Clearly the more affordable government plan could have devastating effects on private individual and group insurance plans.” Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina.

If you wonder if this will happen to the United States, just consider how well the government runs the USPS. The United States Postal Service is not even close to being as efficient as FedEx, UPS or any of the private firms. They are continually raising the cost of sending letters and packages around the world.

Another government mistake: Medicare is said to be insolvent. Study Claims Medicare Debt Will Rise .4 Trillion

Social Security is in a crisis.

If you further wonder what is likely to happen if we choose universal health care, simply look at what is happening in Canada and Britain

We all have a critical stake in health care reform, and it is important that our voice is heard.

Universal Health Care Is An Important Goal

May 8th, 2011

Universal health care is important for the health of each individual, but also for the health of the community. Universal health care refers to the idea that all of the people in a community or country have access to great health care. Universal health care means that no one should go without health insurance just because they are unemployed or unmarried. Universal health care means that all children should receive the health care that they need whether their parents are employed or unemployed. The parents should have the health care necessary as well.


Universal medical care can be given by some type of insurance scheme where all the people in a country or state have access to health care by using the insurance. These insurance plans might have terms and conditions for the services of universal medical services and all of the people should be aware of the terms and conditions. Another type of scheme could supply universal medical care as well. This scheme might include a network of establishments and people who provide the health services necessary for the people of the country or state. This type of scheme might be health clinics and hospitals manned by professionals available to provide the services that people need.


Universal Health Care Should Provide Comprehensive Services


Universal medical care can be provided by different schemes, but it should include all of the services necessary to keep people in great shape. The services should include regular visits to establish the needs of each customer. People need different diagnostic tests and services at different stages of their lives. Younger people need vaccinations to make sure that they do not contract certain diseases. Older people might need diagnostic tests to determine if they have any kind of conditions that require medical treatment. Universal medical care should cover all of these services.


Universal health services should provide the treatment as required by all of the people covered by the plan. These treatments should include prescription drugs or nursing care as required. Other people will need surgery and hospital care for certain conditions. People will need to have certain types of therapy for different conditions and an effective system should provide for these needs. Those people who have chronic or serious conditions should have the medicine or treatments that will eliminate or control these conditions. Hopefully, a good medical care plan will provide each person with the necessary care without a restrictive bureaucratic system that makes it difficult to use the available services.

Universal Health Care – Ethical Issues in Health Care Reform

May 1st, 2011

Universal health care seems to be a hotly debated topic whenever health care reform in the United States is discussed.

Those who maintain that health is an individual responsibility do not want a system that requires them to contribute tax dollars to support fellow citizens who do not act responsibly in protecting or promoting their own health.

They argue that they want the freedom to choose their own physicians and treatments, and suggest that government cannot know what is best for them.  These people argue that preserving the current system with improvements to provide better insurance coverage for citizens who remain uninsured or under insured for their medical care needs is the only reform that is needed.

Those who believe health care is an individual right support a universal health care system with the argument that every citizen deserves to have access to the right care at the right time and that a government’s responsibility is to protect its citizens, sometimes even from themselves.

Two opposing arguments arising from two opposing ideologies.  Both are good arguments but neither can be the supporting argument for implementing or denying universal health care.  The matter must be resolved through an ethical framework.

Examination of the ethical issues in health care reform would require consideration of much different arguments  than those already presented.   Ethical issues would center on the moral right.  Discussion would begin with not “What is best for me?” but rather  “How should we as a society be acting so that our actions are morally correct?”

Ethics refers to determining right and wrong in how humans relate to one another.  Ethical decision making for health care reform then would require human beings to act in consideration of our relationships to each other not our own individual interests.

Examination of some of the common ethical decision making theories can provide a foundation for a different perspective than one that is solely concerned  with individual rights and freedoms.

Ethical decision making requires that specific questions be answered in order to decide on whether intended actions are good or morally correct.  Here are some questions that could be used in ethical decision making for health care reform.

What action will bring the most good to the most people? What action in and of itself is a good act and helps us to fulfill our duties, obligations, and responsibilities to each other? What action in and of itself shows caring and concern for all citizens?

As the answer to all  these questions, universal health care can always be considered the right thing to do.

The United States is in the most advantageous position there is when it comes to health care reform.  They are the only developed country without a national health care system in place for all citizens.  They have the opportunity to learn from the mistakes that have been made by all the other countries that have already gone down the universal health care road. They have an opportunity to design a system that can shine as a jewel in the crown of universal health care systems everywhere.

However, all ethical decision making is structured around values.  In order for universal health care to be embraced by all citizens in the United States, they will first have to agree to the collective value of equity and fairness and embrace the goal of meeting their collective responsibility to each other while maintaining individual rights and freedoms.

That may prove to be the most difficult obstacle of all.

Advantages and Disadvantages Of Universal Health Care

March 27th, 2011

What will national health care cost us and what will be get from it?  

The price of the new health insurance and health care system will include increased taxes.  In some ways, it won’t matter who those taxes are paid by.  If they are paid by the companies, they will raise the price tags of the products they sell, so the individuals will be hurt as well.  If they are paid by the consumer, then the consumer will have less to pay for items, so the companies will be hurt as well.

When we look at the cost of any medical care proposal, we should also look at the costs of the existing medical system to make comparisons.  In today’s medical system, those of us who can pay for health care subsidize those who can’t or won’t.  Your health insurance premiums are higher because your provider has to raise the rates for those who do pay to make up for those who don’t pay.

The costs of our existing medical system include the cost of lower productivity when a worker is unable to work because of a medical condition he or she can’t afford to treat.  The costs of our present health care system include the price associated with more kids growing up without a mom or dad.  

One of the benefits or the present day health care system is our familiarity with it.  It’s like an old car that has a broken driver’s door and a big gash in the passenger seat.  We’ve gotten used to getting in the car from the passenger side and having a blanket over the gash in the seat.  Another car will have problems as well.  The car may be better or worse.  That part is unknown.  What is known is that the car will be unfamiliar and buying a car is a big commitment.

Once we make major changes to our socialized medicine system we will be unlikely to go back to the old medical system.  Even if the new medical system is decidedly worse, we will be stuck with it.  We may have higher price tags or worse care.  We may be able to tweak the new health insurance and health care system and fix it or we may determine that the infrastructure is so poor that it too requires an overhaul.

National health care has the potential of boosting our economy.  Many people who are currently shackled to their employers because of the fear of losing their health insurance, may be able to move on to better jobs or start companies and hire others.  

Under today’s health insurance and health care system many people are unable to pay for preventative care.  They often wind up in the hospital and get expensive surgeries that they can’t afford to pay for.  These surgeries may extend their lives, but may or may not allow them to work again.  An individual who gets medical care when the problem is a small one may be able to work and pay taxes much longer than the individual who only gets care when the situation is critical.

We should strive to create a system that keeps our workers working longer and our parents parenting longer.

Although we may have a health insurance and health care system that is broken, there is no guarantee that a new health care system will be any less broken.  However, far too many people are hurt by our existing health care system for us to just throw up our hands and do nothing.  If we can ignore the rhetoric and focus on the facts a better health insurance and health care system can be created that will not only benefit those who can’t afford health care today, but will make us all stronger.

Advantages and Disadvantages Of Universal Health Care

March 7th, 2011

What will universal health care cost us and what will be get from it?  

The costs of the new health insurance and health care system will include increased taxes.  In some ways, it won’t matter who pays those taxes.  If they are paid by corporations, they will raise the price tags of the goods and services they sell, so the individuals will be hurt as well.  If they are paid by the consumer, then the consumer will have less to pay for goods and services, so the corporations will be hurt as well.

When we look at the cost of any socialized medicine proposal, we should also look at the price of the existing health care system to make comparisons.  In today’s medical system, those of us who can pay for national health care subsidize those who can’t or won’t.  The exact amount is uncertain, but your health insurance premiums are higher because your provider has to raise the rates for those who do pay to make up for those who don’t pay.

The costs of our existing health insurance and health care system include the cost of lower productivity when a worker is unable to work because of a medical condition he or she can’t afford to treat.  The costs of our present system include the costs associated with more children growing up without a father of mother.  

One of the benefits or the present day system is our familiarity with it.  It’s like an old car that has a broken driver’s door and a big gash in the passenger seat.  We’ve gotten used to getting in the car from the passenger side and having a blanket over the gash in the seat.  Another car will have problems as well.  The car may be better or worse.  That part is unknown.  What is known is that the car will be unfamiliar and buying a car is a big commitment.

Once we make major changes to our health care system we will be unlikely to go back to the old medical system.  Even if the new system is decidedly worse, we will be stuck with it.  We may have higher price tags or worse care.  We may be able to tweak the new system and fix it or we may determine that the infrastructure is so poor that it too requires an overhaul.

National health care has the potential of boosting our economy.  Many people who are currently shackled to their employers because of the fear of losing their health insurance, may be able to move on to better jobs or start companies and hire others.  

Under the present day medical system many people are unable to pay for preventative care.  They often wind up in the hospital and get expensive surgeries that they can’t afford to pay for.  These surgeries may extend their lives, but may or may not allow them to work again.  An individual who gets medical care when the problem is a small one may be able to work and pay taxes much longer than the individual who only gets care when the situation is critical.

We should strive to create a system that keeps our workers working longer and our parents parenting longer.

Although we may have a health care system that is broken, there is no guarantee that a new health insurance and health care system will be any better.  However, far too many people are hurt by the present day health insurance and health care system for us to just throw up our hands and do nothing.  If we can ignore the rhetoric and focus on the facts a better medical system can be created that will not only benefit the uninsured, but will make us all stronger.

An American Universal Health Care System

February 4th, 2011

Health Care System Needs Reform, Not a Government Takeover 

Believe it or not, America boasts some of the world’s best doctors, the most advanced health care system, and the most technically superior resources in the world, bar none. Those who travel globally and have gotten sick know that their first choice for treatment would be in the U.S. Though heatlh care in America is, more expensive thanany other country, many of the worlds wealthiest come to the U.S for surgical procedures and complex care, because it holds a worldwide reputation for the gold standard in health care.   

To examine the complex health care issue, a small research study was conducted from randomly selected doctors in mdnationwide.org’s best doctors database. We ask 50 top doctors, located in different states and who practice different specialty fields, ” Is a universal health care plan good for America?” Forty-eight of these doctors essentially responded that it was a “bad idea” that would have negative mpacts on the quality of our nation’s health care.   

 
Social Engineering Your Health Care 

One of the greatest mis-conceptions some people have relied on with regard to the health care debate is that, given a universal health care system, every person in the U.S. would receive the highest quality health care – the kind our nation is renowned for and that we currently receive. However, unlike some public amenities, health care is not a collective public service like police and fire protection services, therefore the Government cannot provide the same quality of health care to everyone, because not all physicians are equally good orthopaedic surgeons, internists, neurosurgeons, etc, in the same way that not all individuals in need of health care are equally good patients.  

As an analogy – stay with me – when you design a software program, there are many elements that are coded on the back-end, and used to manipulate certain aspects of the software program, that your average “John Doe” who uses the software(the end user) does not understand or utilize, nor do they care about these elements. Certain aspects of the program are coded, so that when one uses that portion of the program, other elements of the program are manipulated and automatically follow the present or next command.  

Likewise, once a universal health care plan is implemented in America and its massive infrastructure is shaped, private insurance companies will slowly disappear, and as a result, eventually patients will automatically be forced to utilize the government’s universal health care plan. As part of such a system, patients will be known as numbers rather than patients, because such a massive government program would provide compensation incentive based on care provided, patients would become “numbers,” rather than “patients.”

In addition, for cost savings reasons, every bit of health information, including your own, will be analyzed, and stored by the Government. What are the consequences? If you’re a senior citizen and need a kneereplacement at the age of 70, the government may determine that you’re to old and it’s not worth the investment cost, therefore instead of surgery, you may be given medication for the rest of your life at a substantial cost savings to the government, and at a high quality of life price to you.       

Solutions:   

Fixing the current U.S. health care system might require that we;

1. Encourage prevention and early diagnosis of chronic conditions and management.

2. Completely reform existing government health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.

3. Forgive medical school debt for those willing to practice primary care in under-served areas.

4. Improve access to care, provide small businesses and the self-employed with tax credits, not penalties for providing health care.

5. Encourage innovation in medical records management to reduce costs. 

6. Require tort reform in medical malpractice judgments to lower the cost of providing care. 

7. Keep what isn’t broken-research shows 80% of Americans are happy with their current insurance, therefore, why completely dismantle it?

8. Reimburse physicians for their services.

9. Innovate a system in which Medicare fraud is dramatically decreased.  

 Devil In the Details 

Socialized medicine means: 

1. Loss of private practice options, reduced pay for physicians, overwhelming numbers of patients, and increasing burn-out may reduce the number of doctors pursuing the profession.  

2. Patient confidentiality will need to be compromised, since centralized health care information will be maintained by the government and it’s databases.

3. Healthy people who take care of themselves will pay for the burden of those with unhealthy lifestyles, such as those who smoke, are obese, etc.

4. Patients lose the incentive to stay healthy or aren’t likely to take efforts to curb their prescription drug costs because health care is free and the system can easily be abused.   

5. The U.S. Government will need to call the shots about important health decisions dictating what procedures are best for you, rather than those decisions being made by your doctor(s), which will result in poor individualized patient care. 

6. Tax rates will rise substantially-universal health care is not free since citizens are required to pay for it in the form of taxes. 

7. Your freedom of choice will be restricted as to which doctor is best for you and your family. 

8. Like all public programs, government bureaucracy, even in the form of health care, does not promote healthy competition that reduces costs based on demand. What’s more, accountability is limited to the budgetary resources available to police such a system. 

9. Medicare is subsidized by private insurers to the tune of billions of dollars, therefore if you take them out of the equation, add a trillion dollars or more to the current trillion dollar- plus cost estimates.

10. Currently, the government loses an estimated $ 30 billion a year due to Medicare fraud. Therefore, what makes anyone think that this same government will be able to run & operate a universal health care system that is resistant to fraud and save money while doing so?.

The many ways Americans already pay for universal health care — but don’t have it

December 23rd, 2010

The many ways Americans already pay for a universal health care — but don’t have it.

Number 1 – Your employer:

Health care insurance is primarily provided by the private sector, generally through a group insurance plans negotiated with an employer, of which the employee pays an average of 27%. Then, of course as any accountant can tell you, those costs are expensed by the employer as a cost of doing business and recouped through pricing on goods and services. Therefore, every time you put out your hard earned dollar for anything, you are paying for someone’s health insurance. In fact, you are paying for many people’s health insurance on all the tiers of costs incurred as any product travels on the journey from raw materials to producer, from producer to middleman, from middleman to provider, from provider to the public. At each level, health insurance costs are part of the total cost.

Problems involved with number 1

Pretend you’re the owner of one of those few U.S. industries still operating in the manufacturing sector. The average cost of insuring each employee is ,580 per year. If you have 100 employees, your prices must be high enough to recoup 8,000 annually, and for 1,000 employees ,580,000 annually and so forth. And don’t forget that buried in the cost of any component of whatever it is you’re making, are the health insurance costs of those that produced it. (Assuming it is American made; which it most likely isn’t, because it’s too expensive to make things here, but let’s pretend.) But out there, in the market place, you are in competition on a global basis with foreign manufacturers who are not held responsible for their employees’ health insurance costs. In order to remain competitive, you must cut your expenses. So Mr. or Ms. Business Owner, what will be your first choice of costs to eliminate? Do you think this might have something to do with the choice to manufacture overseas?

Number 2 — You:

You, the employees are paying an average of 27% of your own health insurance, as well as your deductible, as well as your co-pay portion.

Problems involved with Number 2

This 27% is a major reduction of your take home pay, an amount that doesn’t go very far in this day and age. So, you decide to visit the doctor only when you’re truly ill, and forgo those screening and preventative care visits even though you’re insured because those co-pays add up, and have to come out of your grocery budget, or you’ll have to sacrifice cable TV and the kids will drive you crazy then. So it seems like an intelligent decision at the time. Until you require major critical care for a condition that could have been detected and treated had it been caught earlier, and you’re suddenly responsible for 20% of some staggering costs, plus that deductible. And find yourself uninsurable afterward.

But even if you’re lucky, and stay in good health, the premium costs are continually climbing. Why? Because the cost of health services is continually increasing. Why? Because more and more Americans can no longer afford the premiums, but still get sick and show up at the hospitals, which are morally bound to treat them. After all, we can’t have people dying in the street like abandoned dogs, can we? A civilized society doesn’t do that.

Oh, by the way, the common myth that operating deficits in hospitals are due largely to the illegal aliens showing up for free care can be debunked right here. In the states with highest concentrations of illegal immigrants – Texas and California, non-documented aliens account for no more than 14% of those receiving non-insured care.

Naturally, the hospital has to recoup those costs – the ones they can’t squeeze out of the sick you, or your working wife/husband, or the equity in your home, or all of your savings, or your 401K. And they do that by spreading the cost of treating those who can’t pay but don’t qualify for public assistance, to those that can pay and their insurance carriers.

Then, naturally enough, the insurance carriers charge more for the premiums to cover that increased cost, which means that more Americans can no longer afford to pay for health care insurance. This, I believe is called a vicious circle.

Of course, they must. They are in business to make a profit, not to pay for medical care and making a profit is a tough thing to do. Isn’t it?

Here is a list of the CEO’s of some of the major health insurance corporations and how much they earn:

* Ron Williams – Aetna – Total Compensation: ,300,112.
* H. Edward Hanway – CIGNA – Total Compensation: ,236,740.
* Angela Braly – WellPoint – Total Compensation: ,844,212.
* Dale Wolf – Coventry Health Care – Total Compensation: ,047,469.
* Michael Neidorff – Centene – Total Compensation: ,774,483.
* James Carlson – AMERIGROUP – Total Compensation: ,292,546.
* Michael McCallister – Humana – Total Compensation: ,764,309.
* Jay Gellert – Health Net – Total Compensation: ,425,355.
* Richard Barasch – Universal American – Total Compensation: ,503,702.
* Stephen Hemsley – UnitedHealth Group – Total Compensation: ,241,042.

Yep, it sure must be hard to make those profits. The trick to these profits? Get rid of any sick people on your list, and get rid of the ones who are at risk for being sick.

Number 3 – The Public Paid Programs

Those 65 or older get Medicare, paid for by taxes. The poor and medically needy, get Medicaid, paid for by taxes. Those at highest risk, the military, get Veteran’s Administration, paid for by taxes. Children of low income families get CHIP, paid for by taxes. Those above the means test for Medicaid but below whatever each state (and sometimes county) elects as a limit, usually 150% of the poverty level, get Country paid discounts for health care, paid for by taxes. And then, those employed by the Governments – Federal, State, County, and City or Town all get health insurance paid for by taxes, (but upon research this writer found those tax dollars go to the private insurance companies.) If you add up all the health care already paid by taxes, research shows that between 50-60% of the population is already covered.

Now add to this COBRA, that vehicle that was supposed to assist the newly unemployed maintain their insurance. Not only did these newly unemployed suddenly find their premiums escalating, the government chose to pay 67% of Cobra fees rather than put these people on Medicare. Now, as most of these people were in the lower risk categories, the cost to the tax payer might have been next to nothing, relatively speaking, but instead the insurance companies are getting hundreds and hundreds of dollars each month, per person out of what can only be called a publicly funded subsidy.

The Inefficiencies that are creating further costs – to you the lowly insured taxpayer

Most of the insurance carriers are publicly own corporations, and one can, if one wishes, call them up and request a copy of their year-end financial statements. Do so, and look for their overhead accounts, in particular, accounting, clerical (all those people busy denying claims), office space, wages and benefits, computers and so forth – millions (many millions) and then multiply it by the number of companies in the health insurance business. (And for all my research skills, I’ve been unable to get an accurate number, and lost count after 155.)

Now add to that 50 states, each administering Medicaid, Medicare, Chip, SSI, SSP, County programs, City programs, none of them managed concurrently and all requiring their private fiefdoms.

Next, add the cost of accounting for all the veterans receiving medical benefits from Veterans Affairs.

All this duplication of administration — this waste — does nothing to assist in anyone’s health care yet, is included in the calculated cost of keeping the American public 42nd in the world for health care and longevity (just behind Chile 35th and Cuba 37th, and 72nd in overall health.

The estimated cost for all this administration of health care coverage in the U.S. is estimated, according to one Harvard study as 9 billion per year, and by another source as 0 billion dollars per year. (It’s probably safe to assume the truth as somewhere in between.)

In order to cope with all this myriad of administrations, doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs and systems to deal with this amazing, mind boggling bureaucracy.

Combine these two, and all this needless administration consumes one-third of America’s health dollars.

Other costs impacting American society and the costs of their health care

Influence peddling

This past year, with the proposed (but failing) overhaul to the American health care industry, the insurers and drug makers have increased their lobbying efforts in order to protect their bottomless rice bowls. The lobbyists flocked to Washington bearing their gifts. Here are some interesting numbers. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association upped its lobbying expenditures to .8 million dollars; GlaxoSmithKline proffered .3 million; Novartis’ largess was .8 million; MetlifeGroup not to be outdone spread .7 million around the capitol, and Allstate .5 million. Johnson & Johnson had .6 million in their bag of goodies; America’s Health Insurance threw million at your representatives, and Bayer wasn’t far behind. PhRMA spent .6 million in the first half of 2008, and report spending less this year by 0,000.

And the doctors, who one would normally think would love to see an end to this chaos, spent .2 million in the first part of this year alone.

Overall, the health care industry and their pet lobbyists spent money at the rate of .4 million a day.

Now guess who is paying for that – I dare you.

And the cost further down on the food chain

As more Americans each year are faced with crippling health care costs in the face of higher deductibles, or loss of insurance along with their jobs, and declare bankruptcy, but only after depleting their savings and pension funds, what will the future hold for those who approach their retirement years without the assets to support themselves? The baby-boomers — that unnatural hump in the population’s demographics — are approaching their late middle to late years with fewer resources than the previous two generations before them. This can only be a further drain on the nation’s resources.

The insurance companies tier their premium price to employers on such risk factors as age and previous illness – and the premium for someone aged 50 to 60 is three times higher than for those twenty to thirty years their junior who work in the same business. Doesn’t this motivate companies to sacrifice their loyal, long term employees to the bottom line? Age discrimination – illegal, but common practice.

Companies are refusing to insure their workers, resorting to hiring an assortment of part-time employees to avoid the issue. In the state of California, where the government is attempting to legislate mandatory coverage for employees, companies are downsizing to avoid the hefty cost.

And as 50-60% of the population is already covered by health care paid by the tax payer, the working uninsured are paying through their payroll deductions and taxes for health insurance in which they are unable to participate.

For the younger adult population – what is ahead of them? According to the Milliman Medical Index (MMI), the average annual medical cost for a family of four, (employers and employees premium, and out of pocket expenses), was ,414 in 2001, and ,235 in 2002. By 2006 it was ,382 and in 2008 it is ,600 and this year, 2009 ,700. If this trend continues, this cost index will stand at ,000 in 2010 – doubled in ten years. If we extrapolate the trend for another decade, America’s health system will extort ,000 dollars per family of four.

The average mean wage in the U.S. for 2008 was ,000. The average mean household income for a family is ,000. Add in benefits, employee and employer portions and we arrive at the figure known as gross wage base – something accountants consider all those entries that go in to the account ‘Payroll,’ and it is from this the entire MMI is funded. Over the past decade, salaries have grown at around 3% annually (for those still working.) This growth rate in wages is unlikely to increase.

This means that in another ten years, health care will consume between 44% and 50% of the wage base of this family of four.

Millions and millions more families will find themselves joining the 47 million Americans without medical insurance.

Universal Health Care Passed, Time to Get the New Universal Health Insurance Rates!

December 5th, 2010

Universal Health Care Means Discounted Rates

I assume most (maybe all) Americans know about the upcoming health insurance changes, but little do they know! You could save some serious money on your health insurance costs with this upcoming health care reform bill.

The media has been flooding us with universal health care related news, which is logical because it might be one of the most important ‘changes’ Obama has been talking about for such a long time.

Well, as of this morning, Obama’s new health care reform plan did finally pass! It contains a series of changes when compared to the old version (the Senate universal health care bill.)

One was the addition of a new Health Insurance Rate Authority, an idea recently introduced by Dianne Feinstein. Now this is a very interesting idea, and seems to give a lot of people a chance to save on their insurance costs.

But I must warn you, although it’s called ‘free’ & ‘universal’ health care, anything run by the government isn’t really free. This is because ‘we’, the people of the United States, pay our government through taxes. Even if the tax rates don’t get raised, the expenses for universal health care will have to be paid. This could mean a cut in other government expenses; such as education or defense.

So who saves?

Well here is the good news; the average Joe will save, will save A LOT even because of the new health insurance reform. Don’t worry; even if you’re not the average Joe you should be able to save some decent money every month.

What is determining how much you could save with the new universal health care in place?

Well, a number of factors are relevant – including income, age, location and family size.

As most of the times nowadays, the internet is the first to respond. There are multiple insurance companies who can provide you a new health insurance quote, which includes the new health insurance rate authority.

We tried out multiple health insurance quote sources:

Some good & some bad.

One was really sticking out (in a positive way).

We suggest that if you are interested in your own personalized health reform rates (which you should be), you get a health quote by clicking here.

Why healthcarediscount.org?

a) Their insurance quote is free & without any obligation.

b) Their service is quick, it should take you 10 minutes max.

There is a small downside though;

They also want you to fill out a car insurance quote but luckily this is optional, so we suggest you ignore that request.

(although it can come in handy to see if you overpay for your current insurance).

We did some calculations, and the average person will save around 20% (each month).

Not bad right?

Thanks for reading!

~Mike N.

 

Universal Health Care; The Canadian Experience – Part 3

November 5th, 2010

Here’s To Your Wealth!  Comparative Costs of Private and Public Health Systems
Part 3 of a 3-Part Series

 

Everything comes with a cost and health care is no exception.  But which type of health care model costs the most – the universal public type or the for-profit private system?  The answer depends on the source and perhaps what political stripes that source wears.

While President Obama’s camp continues to promote the public option and what they say will be a lower overall cost to consumers, many conservative politicians and talk show hosts have, of course, campaigned hard to make the opposite seem true.  Their take is that industrialized nations with universal public health care pay far more per capita for sub-standard services compared to their US counterpart.

It’s easy to accept without question, this latter position as fact, particularly if you buy-into another popular view that suggests everything and anything the government administers suffers from waste, inefficiency, ineffectiveness and bloated costs.  Let’s face it, you don’t have to look very far to find examples of poor public governance.  (Does anyone remember stories about a certain stars-and-stripes military outfit paying 0 for hammers and hundreds more for toilets?)

Is Public Sector Governance Necessarily Bad?
What some people seem far too eager to ignore is the fact that given proper governance, a publicly administered system providing an essential service has an important advantage.  That advantage is a missing link of sorts.  The ‘chain’ of service provision has many various links that make up the total cost of providing that service.  Consider that the profit link is often one of the biggest links in the chain.  Somewhere along the line, that profit link will necessarily impact the total cost of providing the service as well as the amount of investment that’s diverted back into the system.


Therefore, in operating a for-profit health care system, regardless of whether the gross profit margin is ten or thirty per cent, at some point along the way a markup must occur to generate the extra revenue needed to feed that profit.  A properly managed public health care system need not implement markups.  In theory, then, the taxpayer isn’t overcharged just in order to meet the profit margin goal.  Does it actually work that way?  Just as with other aspects of the public vs. private health care debate, there are both success and horror stories on each side.

Are Canadian Patients Dissatisfied With Their Health Care System?
So much of the chatter we hear today slams the inefficiency and overboard costs of Canada’s health care system.  But consider that for each story from a Canadian patient who experienced mediocre treatment or long delays, there are far more success stories from patients who are sincerely happy with their treatment and who wouldn’t trade their system for the world. 

Take, for instance, the case of a woman from Windsor, Ontario, whose story was revealed this past summer in an article in a Florida newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times.  This Canadian patient was billed a grand total of .95 after having been in hospital for over two months.  Her friend who lives across the river in Michigan spent two or three days in hospital and was billed over ,000.  Those are some real numbers to chew on.


So, what are the rest of the numbers, vis-à-vis the comparative costs of Canadian and American health systems?  More on that in a bit, but first consider the example of education.  Education is one of the untouchables; a cornerstone of most wealthy nations.  It’s one of those essential services.  The quality of a nation’s education determines, to a great extent, that nation’s future prosperity.  Most kids go to public school and most of those parents would never consider scrapping their district’s public system in favor of a for-profit pay-as-you-go private system.


Public Education is in a Shambles, Right?


Education has for long been as politicized as health care has lately become.  Pour the education facts through a political filter and you get a skewed take.  Just as with the health care debate, those on the right champion the superiority of private schools, citing lower costs per student and higher test scores.  They would also have us believe that public education costs are far more expensive per student compared with that of private school.  Both of these ideas are easily challenged.


A widely accepted figure pegs the average cost per student for public education systems nationwide at under ,000.  Comparatively, according to the National Association of Independent Schools, an organization comprised of private schools, the average cost of annual private school tuition per school-aged child is over ,000.  Reports about this seem to be easily overlooked by those wishing to cash-in on the profit potential of the education business.


But isn’t the quality of education better at most of those private schools as compared to the much more heavily attended public schools?  Private schools’ high teacher-to-student ratio and their more selective community are features that are hard to deny.  However we hear little about the fact that public education systems must follow a host of state and federal laws and guidelines; many of which the private schools need not and do not observe.


Further bolstering the argument was a study out of Washington released in October, 2007, confirming that 12th-grade private and parochial school students had matching scores in core academic subjects when compared to their public school counterparts with similar family and income backgrounds.  Other more recent studies by the University of Illinois showed that public school students actually outperformed their private school counterparts in standardized math tests.

Universal Public Education is a Sacred Cow; Why Isn’t Health Care?

It can therefore be easily argued that a service as essential as education can and is provided both efficiently and effectively by the public sector.  Why, then, are so many opposed to the same idea with health care; another service that’s just as essential?

It’s Not a Free-For-All in Canada
First of all, don’t think that every aspect of health care is included in the package.  The government does not pay for most Canadians’ prescription medicines.  Just like the American experience, most Canadian prescriptions are paid for by way of employment benefits packages or it’s a self-pay deal.  (But the Canadian government does cover prescription costs during in-hospital treatment and for patients in certain income and age brackets.)  Another thing that most Canadians pay for is just about any surgery that is elective and not medically necessary.  So that face-lift, laser scar removal or tummy tuck – well – you’re on your own.  The same applies when it comes to dentistry, orthodontics, optometry and eyewear, chiropractic care, and other medical areas that fall outside traditional physician-provided necessary care; for the most part, Canadian patients or their employer insurance carriers pay for these services and treatments.  These things are generally not coming out of the public purse.


The Canadian medicare system covers, in full and without question, all necessary visits to family physicians and specialists, all necessary medical tests, and all necessary hospital stays.  Quite simply that means no bill and no nasty surprise.

What are the specific costs north of the border?
According a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Spending, in 2008 health care spending in Canada was just over 0 billion.  That covers all aspects of costs and comes out to ,170 per person.  Which nation boasts the highest spending?  Spending in the US is now over ,000 per person annually.  A recent analysis in Memphis Tennessee’s Commercial Appeal newspaper showed that the average American needs to work through the months of January, February and March just to pay for his or her share of the health care bill.


How does the old axiom about statistics go?  Liars figure and figures lie.  Yes, it’s easy to skew the truth with statistics, but it’s hard to argue with bottom-line costs from trusted sources and the real-life experiences of real people.


Regardless of whether you sit on the left, the right or on the fence itself, there’s no denying one more fact.  Since universal medicare was legislated in Canada by Tommy Douglas in 1961, Canadian patients have not had to worry about losing their homes, going bankrupt or plundering their retirement savings as a result of the cost of treating a major illness or disease.


Ask any Canadian and they’ll tell you that knowing they’ll always be covered is peace of mind; which, in itself, is quite therapeutic.


Read Part 1 of this series, The Truth About Canadian Health Care; and Part 2, Real Life Stories About Canadian Health Care.


Visit http://www.themorethingschange.weebly.com for more articles and columns by Stephen J. Kristof.