In health-care special featuring mainly free-market advocates, Stossel endorsed Health Savings Accounts
SUMMARY: During a one-hour report on ABC's 20/20 on "America's health-care system," co-host John Stossel interviewed five advocates of free-market approaches to health care but only one advocate of increased government-mandated health coverage. The five free-market advocates were interviewed on air for a total of 6 minutes, 24 seconds, while the lone advocate of a public health system, filmmaker Michael Moore, was interviewed on air for a total of 1:40.
On a special September 14 edition of ABC's 20/20, co-host John Stossel presented a one-hour report on "America's health care system," which Stossel said "most everyone agrees" is "a mess." During the program, he interviewed five advocates of free-market approaches to health care but only one advocate of increased government-mandated health coverage. He began the program by asserting: "Tonight, we ask some provocative questions about your health care. We get some surprising answers." But, the only advocate of a public health system Stossel interviewed during the program was filmmaker Michael Moore. By contrast, Stossel interviewed Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a free-market health-care research organization; David Gratzer, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research; Regina Herzlinger, another senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Harvard Business School professor; John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, described by People for the American Way as a network of national and local right-wing think tanks; and John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, a self-described "ardent libertarian," to advocate a market-based health-care system. Stossel did not note either Gratzer or Herzlinger's affiliation with the Manhattan Institute. During the program, Stossel and his interviewees advocated Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). But Stossel aired only a five-second criticism of HSAs from an unidentified person and did not note that several progressive groups oppose HSAs.
As Media Matters for America documented, after a preview of Stossel's special on the September 14 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, host Diane Sawyer told Stossel, "It is so hard to get perspective on this. Thank heaven you're doing it." As he did on 20/20, Stossel included a clip of Gratzer during Good Morning America but did not point out his affiliation with the Manhattan Institute.
In a 5 minute, 48 second segment on HSAs, Stossel profiled accounts offered by Whole Foods and included interview segments with Whole Foods CEO Mackey and free-market proponents Herzlinger and Turner, but only a five-second criticism from an unidentified person. HSAs were first created by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2003 and signed by President Bush. As described by the Treasury Department, such plans allow individuals to save money tax-free to pay for most medical care while enrolling in a "High Deductible Health Plan" with a deductible of at least $1,100 for individuals or $2,200 for families that covers large health-care expenses. President Bush has endorsed expansion of the HSA program, including in his 2005, 2006, and 2007 State of the Union addresses. However, a January 31, 2006, article in USA Today reported that "[c]ritics of health savings accounts, including the Commonwealth Fund and Consumers Union, say lower-income people can't afford high-deductible plans and that some people will go without needed health care if they are required to spend more." The AFL-CIO and Families USA also oppose HSAs. Stossel mentioned none of this criticism in his report, and instead endorsed HSAs as better than increased government involvement in health care, stating: "[W]hen doctors deal directly with consumers and consumers pay for things themselves, saving insurance for the big stuff, doctors start to compete, posting prices and working to keep them low. Where consumers decide for themselves, rather than having governments or insurance companies make decisions for them, competition erupts and competition gives us more choices. Choice gives us power."
Additionally, Media Matters counted the amount of time devoted to on-air interviews throughout the hour-long special, titled "Whose Body is it Anyway? Sick in America." Segments in which patients discussed their experiences with the health-care systems in Canada and the United States were not included, since they did not advocate for specific changes to the U.S. health-care system. During the program, Moore was interviewed on air for a total of 1:40, while the five free-market advocates were interviewed on air for a total of 6:24.
As Media Matters has documented, Stossel has in the past asserted that "global warming may be a good thing," and claimed that it is a "myth" that "women earn less" than men for "doing the same work."
From the September 14 edition of ABC's 20/20:
STOSSEL: The next hour affects every one of us, because it's about health care. Tonight we ask some provocative questions about your health care. We get some surprising answers. Most everyone agrees, America's health-care system is a mess.
[...]
STOSSEL: So when doctors deal directly with consumers and consumers pay for things themselves, saving insurance for the big stuff, doctors start to compete, posting prices and working to keep them low. Where consumers decide for themselves, rather than having governments or insurance companies make decisions for them, competition erupts and competition gives us more choices. Choice gives us power. Michael Moore should know that. After all, when he at one time weighed about 330 pounds and wanted help losing weight, where did he go? Not to Cuba or Canada or England or France. He went to this weight loss spa in Florida. It's privately run.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN [video clip]: Now down in the water. Hold it.
STOSSEL: That's our program for tonight. Next week --
ELVIS PRESLEY [video clip]: (singing) Viva Las Vegas!
STOSSEL: -- Elvis, Viva Las Vegas, the two-hour special.
of all the stupid nonsense i've ever seen. the fact that michael moore went to a weight loss spa in florida proves the superiority of the present system? and when "consumers pay for things themselves" that keeps prices "low". no, because it's a fact that when you don't have insurance you pay more. stossel is a propaganda apologist for industry.
and the whole problem with "health savings accounts" is that it assumes you have the money to put into them. does everyone have the 5600 dollars a year that you can put in? i think not.
It is perfect GOP program since it provides tax dollars to the wealthy for what they are already doing.
Stossel has been an idiot on most topics for a very long time. It is lucky for abc, though. Recently, the president of abc news announced his intention to move the organization much more to the political right. Stossel, as the perfect stooge, was already in place for that (as is righty diane sawyer).
>>Recently, the president of abc news announced his intention to move the organization much more to the political right.
Ugh! I didn't realize this. Could you give me a link?
i do recall something like that, i think it was even on here one time. he made a comment that the way to get ratings was to appeal to the right.
Stossell is a whore who thinks that he is finally making headway in the "Rush Limbaugh' type sector. His problem is he's a stupid whore who hasn't realized that "Right wing nut jobs' have finally started to run their course.
"Choice gives us power."
Yes, in a market for products that we DON'T REALLY NEED it does. I can choose from various TVs for example, based on what features I want, and how much I am willing to pay. Choice works there.
When I need health care, I as a consumer am NOT in charge. I want ONE thing out of it - I want to get healthy. I have no other objective. I do not care about choice. And most people don't - they are in no position to sit and "choose".
Those who treat health care as any other product are at best stupid, and at worst greedy and cynical.
Thanks for making that point. I've been screaming this at my radio and TV for years, whenever some "free market" stooge claims that "market forces" would miraculously cure our healthcare problems.
If you're in the hospital, let's say, to have a baby, and the Doctor says the baby will die unless they do a C-section...do you ask how much it costs? Do you pull out the phone book and go comparison shopping? Do you go to C-section.com and get a quote? Of course not.
Health savings accounts are fine for people who can afford them, but there are millions who can't.
The one feature of a "FREE MARKET", which nobody mentions when discussing rightwing "plans" for health care, is that the bottom line feature of "free markets" is that, if you cannot afford the product, you simply DO WITHOUT.
TVs were mentioned earlier, but it's the same with CARS. There certainly is a vast array of "choice" for those of varying means. You can get a Cadillac or a BMW, with any variety of add-ons ... IF you can afford it. Then there are Fords and Hyundais for those of more modest means. But if you can't make the payments, smaller though they are, you cannot have even THOSE products ... you do without.
The working poor often avail themselves of public transportation, because they simply cannot afford a car. The initial PRICE of a car is just the beginning ... there is gas and maintenance, insurance and licenses, and in reality, few can escape the occasional parking ticket or speeding ticket or whatever. All of this is constant, and EXPENSIVE.
The poor cannot afford even minimal health care, in its current "market" form. But WE THE PEOPLE determined that we would not just let human beings "DO WITHOUT" health care simply because they didn't have the cash. NOBODY can be turned away from an Emergency Room in America ... and there's the problem: ER care is about the MOST EXPENSIVE care around, and it is picked up by the taxpayers for those 47 million uninsured.
Conservatives wail that they should not have to pay for other people's health care, but THEY ALREADY DO. The choice is NOT between NO taxes, as rightwingers would have us believe, and having folks "pay their own way", because the current system already employs the MOST EXPENSIVE way to cover those without means. The CHOICE is how to provide lesser expensive and more effective (preventive, for example) care, and thus enjoy a savings over the current expensive system.
Hillary addresses this problem, but "market conservatives" will NEVER do so ... because being conservative to them means BY DEFINITION that they cannot advocate raising taxes. It's easier for them to just ignore that the current system already means taxation at the highest rate. They do this by exploiting the degree of separation between covering PEOPLE, versus covering ER expense (indirectly, inefficiently, and constantly).
As always, with the rightwing, it's all about ignoring REALITY while concentrating on lowering taxes for the very wealthiest. That way, the inefficient system's taxes fall more heavily on the middle class. The uninsured? They can be dealt with using bumper stickers. In Texas, that sticker reads, "Don't have an oil well? GET one!"
Oh, and "Just say 'NO' " to drugs. A simplistic "solution", doesn't cost the rightwinger a dime, and SOUNDS good. They never get around to telling us their 'solutions' DON'T WORK.
and if you can't buy a TV, you just feel like you're going to die ... you're not GOING TO DIE ...
i have choices
The picture posted with the article is absolutely the best picture I've seen of Stossel in years. He looks so much more human without his mustache.
Yeah, but it makes him look a little more smarmy than usual.
Once a Stasshol, always a Stasshol. Sorry, my spel chek nver wrks.
It ain't Stossel, and it ain't human, either. It's Chris Wallace.
So when your appendix bursts you should call around for the best price before going to the hospital??
I think the Stossels of the world should go live in their own world with their own rules. Then maybe the non-rich American people can have health insurance and save everybody money. If the HMOs and everyone in the system are making huge money, while people are denied care, and 25+ million are not insured at all, and...
Someone please tell me what additional taxes Canada pays. IF it is an additional 15% on goods sold, then I would have to purchase a used car every month to pay more than my insurance premium.
Why are wealthy people so selfish? Why is it that the single biggest predictor of these "free market" idiots, along with most Conservatives, one basic trait -- selfishness?
If Stossel has his way, I'm moving to Canada, and partly to be away from "personalities" like his.
The kind of place where the "free market" reigns is Iraq, so that should be Stossels idyllic place.
Of course, there is not a free market, just the rich and powerful trying to create monopolies wherever they are.
John Stossel is a hack, (the journalistic version of a cheap whore,) and a HUGE hypocrite.
He advocates cutting off government handouts, yet when his big pricey seaside house was destroyed by a storm, yet he applied for and got a government-backed low-interest loan to rebuild the pricey home, in the SAME PLACE.
He advocates getting rid of lawsuits and trial lawyers, yet he sued that pro wrestler who rang his bell.
He directly LIED about organic foods.
He claimed Global Warming "may be a good thing." http://mediamatters.org/items/200702260007
He lied about women earning less than men.
Like I said, Stossel is a hack.
You're right. I never paid much attention to Stossel until I saw him do a segment about education. When the subject of school vouchers came up, he said something about how Democrats opposed offering school "choice" to poor kids. In other words, he was reading from the GOP transcript. I realized then that he's a conservative hack, as you've pointed out.
Stossel is one of the many who make me glad there is no available brick to hurl at my TV screen.
Anybody notice that the major portion of Moore's comment had noting whatever to do with health care?
The ripoff is incredibly intense and if you have no health insurance, you are incredibly screwed.
I had to have a cancerous kidney removed a couple of years ago. Being curious about the cost (I only had about 5 0r 600 bucks total expenditures) I called my provider at the time. I was read a litany of various expenditures over the phone that were unbelievable! I don't remember exactly, but it went something like this "The operating room cost $7,900, but the hospital is under contreact to us so we paid $586..."
Again, I just made those numbers up, but the proportion is about right. Turned out the total bill was about 75 grand and Blue Cross paid less than $5000.
IF all the insurance premiums I had paid had been in a HSA and IF I could have gotten the same price the insurance company did I would have been fine. If not, bankrupt. When you are suddenly dying (I'll spare you the details) letting your fingers do the walking isn't really an option.
Stossel is full of ....
Wrong. BCBS didn't pay $5000 on $75,000 bill. Didn't happen. Never has happened. Never will happen. Insurance companies get big discounts...as high as 80% on some services but the reduction in cost that you attest to just doesn't happen.
Had you had an HSA plan with an $1100.00 deductible then your total cost, with most HSA plans, would have been $1100.00(plus whatever premiums you'd paid if you want to factor those in).
If you were really poor then the governement would have picked up the tab through medicaid or some such program,
Don't know if the last comments are showing up without boxes for everyone...but think it is appropriate symbolism for Stossel's libertarian outlook, no regulation, let everything go.....dribble all over the page.
Media Matter's own Paul Waldman has a good article on the looming healthcare struggle.
"My favorite new conservative argument is that the problem with progressive approaches is that they don't allow you to "own your own health care." The people who sold us the "ownership society" seem to believe that there is nothing that cannot be owned, and one must necessarily gain when one moves from a state of not-owning to owning. But the idea that we would "own" our health care is positively nonsensical. What if I told you that the problem you have with car repairs is that you don't "own" your tune-ups and oil changes? Or that you'd be much better off if you could "own" your own protection from fires instead of relying on that big-government fire department? You'd quite rationally conclude that I was some kind of idiot, and you certainly wouldn't take my advice on much of anything."
[link to www.prospect.org]
What gets me about Health Care is that not one of these right wing libertarians talks about preventative medicine or early diagnosis. When people are poor and uninsured they don't got to the doctor and get checkups, so, for example, they might not be diagnosed with hypertension. If that goes on long enough, they have a stroke. and who pays for their hospital stay? We do, through higher hospital bills. But if someone gets a checkup and gets on blood pressure medication, we end up paying about $500 per year instead of tens of thousands.
It's not a free market because you are not turned down for emergency medicine. Who do you think pays for that now? Preventative medicine and screening alone could save us hundreds of millions per year.
I watched this show, and for once I kept an open mind about the whole subject. The one thing that struck me as a relief is that on BOTH sides of the interview (Stossel and Moore) they AGREE on the root of the problem: Insurance companies. They are both absolutely correct. And the 20/20 piece spends a great deal of time ripping against big insurance. GREAT!!! At least we all agree on something. The SOLUTION is the main issue: how do we FIX IT?
Stossel maintains that reducing the role of insurance companies and increasing the responsibility of the consumer will drive down the prices. He uses the Lasik eye surgery industry as an example. Most insurance won't cover Lasik. So, since the customer must pay for the procedure, an element of competition is introduced and prices go down as the service gets better. He's absolutely correct in this sense. I had Lasik one year ago. I paid $3,500.00 for the procedure. Now, I see Lasik advertised for as low as $1,000.00 just a year later. Yes, market forces CAN work.
Moore says that a government run system is the best solution. He cites Canada and Cuba as examples. Now, just like everything else, there are good points and bad. For the most part, from what I've seen, I don't think I'm ready for government run healthcare. I respect Moore's opinion, but it seems to me like he's trying to sell us a lemon on this one.
So I watched it. I'm informed. And my decision (as liberal as I am) aligns most with Stossel. I say let's try market forces FIRST. Give it a chance. If it doesn't work, THEN let's turn to the government. I don't want to hand healthcare to politicians just yet. My $0.02.
Well, I think the problem may be the phrase "Government-run healthcare".
The solution that makes the most sense to me is what is referred to as a "single payer" plan. As I understand it, such a system would create a government-run insurance policy, similar to Medicare or what Congress has. You still get to choose your doctor, and you and your doctor still get to make all medical decisions. The Government's only role is to provide you with insurance. Premiums would be based on income. Those who choose and can afford it can still buy private insurance.
Of course, the details haven't all been ironed out, but this is different from the boogeyman "government run healthcare" that the conservatives like to shake at us.
Interesting concept, Nerzog, but how do you keep prices under control. If the gov't sets a maximum allowable charge for an MRI, predictably, everyone will charge the maximum for an MRI. And how long until politicians use the program to buy votes. I hate to be the nay-sayer here, but since my Lasik experience, I'm kind of excited to see if market forces will work industry-wide. I'm sure there will be some abuses and corruption, but it seems to me that if competition has worked this well with Lasik surgeons, then why not give it a shot? Like I said, I'm just not ready to hand MY BODY over to government.
But we have given OUR BODY to the free market. And that has resulted in the US getting ranked 37th in the world for health care. And we have paid double for what we get.
We've handed our bodies over to big insurance. I'm saying we should change that. If the government becomes the ONLY insurance provider, I don't see anything changing.
But to be fair, we have given our bodies to the free market, whether you call it big insurance or something else. And now you are saying we should do that again.
In Europe, they get much, much better health care, and it cost them less. So of course I am for that system.
I don't see big insurance operating under the premise of "free trade". They charge us whatever they want, they pay what they want to pay, and if we want to change it, most of us have to change our jobs and get into a new plan (which is probably just as bad). Big health insurance is not "free trade". They have (most of) us by the short hairs and they know it.
Besides that, my health insurance plan costs me LESS than Medicare taxes! I don't even USE Medicare. What happens when the gov't sets my premium?
>>I don't see big insurance operating under the premise of "free trade".
Good grief! What is it some type of socialist entity that we were not aware of? Insurance companies have competition from other insurance companies. You can shop for plans.
If you want to know what will happen when the government takes over, look at what has happened in Europe: you will pay less and get more.
>>Besides that, my health insurance plan costs me LESS than Medicare taxes! I don't even USE Medicare. What happens when the gov't sets my premium?
You are using anecdotal evidence to support your argument, but I would be interested in how you came up with this calculation anyway.
Funnyman, I don't think that you are keeping an open minded approach to your views on the subject. You keep saying we'll get better health care, and it will cost less. At this point, I just don't agree with you.
When I said that my health insurance plan premium is less per month than my medicare taxes, that's just what I mean. I pay MORE for Medicare (something I DON'T use) than my own health care insurance (something I DO use). I'm not saying that health insurance companies are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if we switch to a system where the government would become the insurance company, how much MORE would they take? They ALREADY take more than my current premium for something that I'm not even eligible for!
I think that we should not rush into government control. It should be the LAST option. Government should take over when the people have exhausted every other option. At that point, we can give it over to big brother and say, "Here, wise politician, make it all better for us." And as we've seen over the last couple of decades, we get screwed when we do that.
What would be the harm in giving a consumer driven market a try FIRST. If we had to pay for routine checkups, physicals, immunizations, dental cleanings, eye exams, and prescriptions out of our own pockets, it wouldn't take long for the medical industry to realize that they need to drop their prices to match our demands. Insurance, in my opinion, should be there when unexpected costs are incurred (like car insurance). If something devastating or unforseen should happen to me, then yes, I want an insurance plan to be there. But yearly check-ups? Immunizations? No thanks, I'll take care of that.
Maybe I'm leaning toward a libertarian attitude with this, but we've seen time and time again what a demanding consumer can do to drive down prices. And as long as big insurance has their hands in every aspect of our medical coverage, we are not driving the costs, are we?
I'm sure you're going to tell me how wrong I am, but this is my opinion. Peace.
"What would be the harm in giving a consumer driven market a try FIRST."
No prob whatsoever.
Except that the market has had ample time to provide affordable care for all. The market has failed and has failed because the market puts profit before people.
>>When I said that my health insurance plan premium is less per month than my medicare taxes, that's just what I mean. I pay MORE for Medicare (something I DON'T use) than my own health care insurance (something I DO use).
Which means nothing. You didn't answer the question. How much do you pay in insurance a month? And how much of your taxes go to medicare?
>>If we had to pay for routine checkups, physicals, immunizations, dental cleanings, eye exams, and prescriptions out of our own pockets
That is very impractical. Who can afford to pay for all of this out of their pockets?
>>but we've seen time and time again what a demanding consumer can do to drive down prices. And as long as big insurance has their hands in every aspect of our medical coverage, we are not driving the costs, are we?
We haven't seen that consumers drive down costs. If that were the case, we would play less for insurance than Europeans pay. We pay more. You are free to pay for your own health out of pocket. See if that drives the market down.
You are entitled to your opinion, but to be fair, the facts are not on your side. The US has a free market system and ranks 37th in the world, and we pay more than other countries. The free market h as been given its chance and failed, and failed badly.
The point I'm trying to get across to you is that we DON'T have a "consumer-driven" health care system, we have an "insurance-driven" health care system. "Maximum allowable charges" are set by big insurance. Predictably, medical service providers charge the "maximum allowable charge" for every service they provide. This is why costs are so high. Do you think a doctor is going to say, "Well, I know your PPO will pay a maximum of 138.00 for an office visit, but I'm only going to charge 65.00." No way. They'll charge the 138.00 because they can, and also because they have to deal with a mountain of paperwork to get your claim processed.
My brother-in-law is a pediatrician. He has told me that if insurance companies would just stick to major care and get out of everything else, he could drop his prices DRAMATICALLY and still feed his family.
And why not pay for yearly check-ups? If they can be reduced to a reasonable price, driven by "consumer" demand, why not just write a check? Need antibiotics for an infection? Why go to insurance for that, if a consumer-driven prescription market would provide us with low prices? We've already started to see that type of thing happen with $4.00 prescriptions.
You say the market hasn't worked for us. I say that because of big insurance, it hasn't even had a chance to START working for us.
Check this out, it's from Friday!
http://www.northern-scot.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/2835/Moray_waiting_list_for_NHS_dentists_soars_to_10,000.html
1 dentist for every 1,500 people is their GOAL? No thanks.
Yes, and while you are at it, check out this:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1508
You are using anecdotal evidence again. WHO (World Health Organization) ranked the US 37th in the world, and they based their rankings on, amongst other things, wait time and overall health.
40 million people in this country don't even have health care. They can tell you plenty of horror stories.
And you know this how? You've been sick in Europe or Canada? Really sick? That TB guy in Italy sure was in a hurry to get back here...Sorry but when people get really sick or if they want the best medical care, they're coming here. If you've lived in Canada or Europe for a long time and you've used their systems then I'll consider you a reliable, though anecdotal source. I'm guessing by your post that that's not the case.
At 38 years old it would cost me about $100-200 a month to get insurance, let's say an HSA plan, with an $1100.00 to 5500 deductible...then 100% coverage of everything. So if i take the lower deducitible, I'm responsible for the first $100.00 in any given year. the insurance company assumes the remaining rist of 3-5 million. Call me crazy but that sounds pretty fair to me.
The UN ranks the US 37th in the world in health care. The US uses the free market.
Countries that have government-run health care are ranked much higher. For example, France is number. And these countries pay less, less than what US citizens pay.
Why wouldn't I be for government-run health care, since it would give me better services and cost less?
First and foremost we need to get a handle on Illegal Immigration. Once that is taken care of, the Nation may be able to afford such care.
Your point is way off topic and doesn't make sense anyway. Right now Americans spend double what Europeans spend. If we took that same money and had the government run health care, we would save ourselves 1/2 of what we spend and get more in return.
It would cost us less, not more.
DON'T MESS WITH MY HEALTH CARE! I am poor and lazy by choice. I live in Washington state and pay a $20.00 a month co-pay for State provided health care. Thanks rich people.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Its great, I receive the same health care from Kaiser that participants in their regular programs do. Including emergency and major medial.
You should troll where the fish are biting better.
"I had Lasik one year ago. I paid $3,500.00 for the procedure. Now, I see Lasik advertised for as low as $1,000.00 just a year later. Yes, market forces CAN work."
UGH! Where do these insane examples come from? You do not need to have eye surgery, just like you do not need to have a TV. If heart surgery were as simple an option as silly eye surgery or buying a TV, then have at it.
Sure, I'll just shop for a heart surgeon since I have plenty of time on the drive to the hospital... RIGHT! I'll bet there will some great bargains at the $1,000 level, and I hope they know what they are doing. Wonder if I upgrade to Heart 2.0 for another grand?
We have proof that market forces do not work. It's called the US health system. This is exactly what we have, but with HMOs shoved in the middle. Take them out, keep the existing greed, and you have the same US health system with the HMO players scrambling for a piece of the pie in other ways.
We have proof that the costs can be lowered and we can be more humane about it. Its called "everybody other industrialized nation's system" and it is cheaper and better for the average person. Yes, better. Not necessarily better for the wealth, but MUCH MUCH better for the average and above-average Joe. I would be paying less and getting more out of any European country, but I have to listen to the ever-decreasing percentage of well-insured people claim "we have the best in the world". Yeah, right. Tell that to the uninsured. Tell that to the self-employed. Tell that to the sick who have their insurance dropped. Tell that to those who switch jobs and find themselves in a bind. Tell that to the majority, and see what they have to say about it.
Scooter,
Thanks for the primer on classic socialism. ;-)
I'm all for cheaper medical insurance, but I don't want the level of care to go down as you suggested.
Of course one doesn't want to be thumbing through the phone book yellow pages, looking for a surgeon if one is on the way to the hospital. However, if one can lower costs by dealing directly with medical profession, weighing the costs of tests and procedures, and in addision there is a financial incentive to stay in good health, then maybe more people will use 'greed' as a motivator to keep their money and at the same time getting in better and cheaper healthcare rather than just forking it over as they do now to insurance companies.
If people controlled how they spent their health care dollars, maybe they'd do more to get in shape and lose weight rather then stoping regularly at McDonalds for an Angus burger and biggie fries with the expectation to just go to the emergency room doctor when the big one hits.
Sorry for the run on sentences.
We've tried the free market and it has failed. Now we are seeing the excuse that it is the insurance companies fault, as if insurance companies aren't part of the free market.
They are. They failed us.
Its my day........ I have a son thats an attorney in the "medical mal-practice" field and a sister that is a physician. According to them its the insurance company's that are the problem. My son sues insurance company's on behalf of clients and also doctors who make mistakes, my sister pays high insurance premiums to cover bad doctors and on and on...... there is way more than enough money in the "system" to give the finest health care the world has ever known to every citizen in this country. It is a shame that it is divided up the way it is between insurance company's, attorneys and care givers. How are you going to punish bad and unqualified doctors if not for the legal system and on and on.......
>>here is way more than enough money in the "system" to give the finest health care the world has ever known to every citizen in this country. It is a shame that it is divided up the way it is between insurance company's, attorneys and care givers.
Which is why there should be a government run health care system.
Broken record. Those that want governement run health-care just amaze me. Despite having ZERO examples of efficiently run government programs some people still think the government can solve their problems.
Social Security? Joke. Homeland Security? Joke. Fema? joke. Medicare? Marginal. And on and on and on. Government run health care? Good luck with that.
Can't believe i forgot public education...like another example was needed.
Whatever.
You know Republicans are elected by people who have been convinced government is bad. They then work to mismanage and underfund government into oblivion.
It's a vicious cycle.
HSA and free market solutions are fine for upper middle class and wealthy people, but the middle class poor could not afford their own health care.
As far as the lasik analogy, there are many different kinds of lasik surgery many practices give teaser quotes to hook you in.
Most rural area do not have the competition to lower prices, they are lucky to have one doctor.
A single payer system is the best solution for the population as a whole.
Sure, I'll just shop for a heart surgeon since I have plenty of time on the drive to the hospital... RIGHT! I'll bet there will some great bargains at the $1,000 level, and I hope they know what they are doing. Wonder if I upgrade to Heart 2.0 for another grand? -
scooter / Monday September 17, 2007 03:51:11 PM EST
Emergency operations are one thing but strange you should mention "shopping" for a doctor or hospital, my neighbor and friend is scheduled to have heart surgery and was able to "shop" for a doctor that has much more experience and better facility's for his particular problem and has a much lower fatality rate in Texas than anywhere else in the country. It was not cheaper, it was more expensive. His insurance company agreed to pay the higher rate to get the lower mortality rate and of course my neighbor is happy that he does not have to be cut on by a less experienced physician as well. I wonder if national health care would be so flexible? It will be for the "rich" who can afford to buy it or go out of country. Tijuana here they come......nothing would stop "good" doctors from setting up shop in another country and servicing "the rich" with better health care either. Capitalism will raise its ugly head and create those "untended consequences" for governmental agencys...........it all ways does.
Yes, capitalism has already reared its ugly head. It's called the US health care system that is ranked 37th in the world.
Meanwhile, we have France, a socialist country, ranked 1st.
Rankings do not matter if you cant get it......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm
AGAIN..... dont mess with MY health care. I can get it TODAY if I need it.
God you are clueless. The article you linked to is from *2004!*
France is now ranked #1! That means patients wait less and get better overall treatment.
And 40 million people in this country don't have any health insurance.
I can't even follow your argument. You have government health insurance (provided by the government of Washington), so you are for everyone having the same, right?
I'm a sitten here waiten for that funny guy. Check the COST of it now and the deficit in France................look out shes gonna blow!
The cost of what? We pay double what Europeans pay. And you are aware that the US has a huge deficit?
Why did you post a link from 2004 to prove your point? That was just plain misleading on your part. And if your health insurance is so good, then that means government health care works, right?
The United States spends far more on health care than other advanced countries. Yet we don't appear to receive more medical services. And we have lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality rates than countries that spend less than half as much per person. How do we do it?
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2005/krugman_health_insurance.php
Exactly. Also note how the French ABUSE their system. It's no coincidence that they use 2-4 times the amount of medications. Or are the French just sicker?
rRght and France will be able to maintain it's socialist system for how much longer? France ain't doing too well bro. And if you love socialism, there are plenty of countrys to choose from. Have at it.
Health care in Washington state run by the state is NOT available for everyone who needs it....... there is a fund........there is a waiting list........there is a list of people who are covered and it changes with the size of the fund.....nothing could be worse except for those of us who have taken advantage of it.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/06/health_care_badly_run/
Don't be so quick with those personal attacks...... this should be a search for the truth and I am only offering up points for discussion and since it is health care a dose of snark.
Health care in Washington state .....nothing could be worse except for those of us who have taken advantage of it.
tweakthetroll / Monday September 17, 2007 05:17:10 PM EST
Its great, I receive the same health care from Kaiser that participants in their regular programs do. Including emergency and major medial.
tweakthetroll / Monday September 17, 2007 03:30:18
--
You completely contradicted yourself. You are raising no good points.
By the way, your link shows noting. Who am I supposed to believe, an editorialist who writes a 800 word editorial, or a massive report thoroughly researched by WHO?
Again, the US is ranked 37th in the world. And we pay double what the Europeans pay.
My bad. It wasn't even an editorial, but someone's blog entry! You have got to be kidding me. By the way, the blog itself mentions that patients don't have to wait in France. You claimed the opposite, earlier.
"Thanks for the primer on classic socialism. ;-)
I'm all for cheaper medical insurance, but I don't want the level of care to go down as you suggested. " -- Some guy with good insurance who is obviously in good health
Sorry for the primer, but you sound like you need some education on this topic. If you do not know what a social program is, then simply listen as the adults discuss the bigger topics. For your next lesson, know this: with a national plan (or a "socialized" one for those who still live in fear of Fox labels) costs go down, care goes up. Simple. We have other countries that prove this, and we have the US to prove that allowing corporations to take over something essential to live become greedy.
I suggested that the care would go up. What were you reading? I think if you knew how much "classic socialism" you used, you'd be surprised. Of course you would not want to take THOSE programs away, but there you have it... selfishness at its finest. Should we eliminate the biggest "classic socialism" program in the history of the world? The one that costs us the most and has by far the most unchecked fat... ever? What's the most efficient program? Hmmmm. Maybe these would be worth looking into.
Overall level of care for the poor - WAY UP from NOTHING to something humane and sensible. Overall care for the lower-middle class - WAY UP. Overall care for the middle class - UP. Overall care for the upper-middle class, up. Overall care for the wealthy - same as it ever was for these guys no mater what progrm is in place.
Cost -- DOWN for all. Where's the problem. Ahhhhh, do you work for a HMO? Or do you work for an insurance company? Obviously, you have more than adequate insurance and are secure, otherwise you could not possibly be arguing for this expensive mess that leaves millions without a prayer.
Most US citizens would be better with the program in France. Most. We would pay less. Less. How hard is this?
So did you all hear of Hillary's new health care plan? MANDATORY purchase of health care insurance by all Americans, whether we can afford it or not. She stole the idea from Romney. She's trying to bankrupt the working class!!!!!
WHO has been conducting surveys throughout the world and the most recent reports identify that the most important aspect of medical care for the individual is access/responsiveness. Guess who is #1? The USA.
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2007_10highlights.pdf
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/responsiveness/papers/human_rights.pdf
When you include the other elements of the survey, fairness, dignity and social justice(?) no wonder the WHO gave higher ratings to the countries entombed in socialized medicine. When push comes to shove, we have access to care here, (that includes everyone, by law hospitals cannot turn away people who need care) because of a private and publically funded system. Our health care provides innovation and access. Even Canadians see it.
http://www.thestar.com/article/256925
http://www.thestar.com/article/256925
Without easy access you are stuck with rationing care or like Britan, a two-tier system of health care. One where the rich have easy access to care and everyone else given the crumbs.
As nice as 'free socialized' health care sounds, Quinn's first law rings truer, Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
Let's make our system better by instituting more free market reforms.
Free market principles = no money, no health care. How compassionate.
I have never agreed with any of Stossel's so-called specials. This health insurance program was just a total scam. What happens when you have a $1,000 or $2,000 plus deductible? You simply don't go to the doctor! All those plans are good for is a major illness. I had one at one time before we retired. I just didn't go to the doctor at all! As for showing how long people have to wait for health care in countries that have national health care..........he didn't show any of the folks who are happy with their situation? We also have to wait for quality health care in this country. And good luck finding a new doctor if your doctor leaves town, etc. etc.
Despite this thread being dated, I thought this was still worth posting.
Here's what Julie Pierce, whose husband is a victim of the insurance industry, had to say to John Stossel after he dragged her name through the mud over her "sob story".