NY Times noted Giuliani's criticism of British health care, but not campaign's use of flawed statistics
A November 7 New York Times article on Judith Giuliani's appearance before "an audience of medical professionals and cancer survivors" reported that Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani "has repeatedly criticized Britain's health care system and said that the Democratic candidates were calling for a similar system of 'socialized medicine.' " While the Times article, by reporter Julie Bosman, noted that "[i]n fact, most of the Democrats say they advocate plans to extend coverage to the uninsured, not plans for government-provided health care," it did not point out that the figures Giuliani has cited to criticize Britain's health-care system -- that his "chance of surviving ... in the United States, 82 percent" but that his "chance of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine" -- have been disputed. As Media Matters for America has documented (here and here), several media reports have called into question Giuliani's claims, noting that Giuliani was not citing mortality rates, but rather survival rates, which experts including Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute, called, in Parnes' word, "meaningless." In fact, Bosman herself had reported on the problems with Giuliani's statistics in an October 31 Times article:
The Office for National Statistics in Britain says the five-year survival rate from prostate cancer there is 74.4 percent. And doctors also say it is unfair to compare prostate cancer statistics in Britain with those in the United States because in the United States the cancer is more likely to be diagnosed in its early stages.
"Certainly, if you intensively screen for prostate cancer, you will find early disease," said Dr. Ian M. Thompson, chairman of the department of urology at the University of Texas at San Antonio. "And simply because you find it earlier, you will always have longer survival after the disease is diagnosed."
Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Mr. Giuliani, said yesterday that the 44 percent figure came from an article in City Journal, a publication of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research organization.
"The citation is an article in a highly respected intellectual journal written by an expert at a highly respected think tank which the mayor read because he is an intellectually engaged human being," Ms. Comella said in an e-mail message.
That article, titled "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care," was written by Dr. David Gratzer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and an adviser to the Giuliani campaign.
In an interview, Dr. Gratzer said the statistic came from the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group in New York specializing in health care policy issues, but he acknowledged that it was seven years old and "crude."
But the Commonwealth Fund said yesterday that Dr. Gratzer had misused its research by calculating a five-year survival rate based on data on prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in the United States and Britain.
"Five-year survival rates cannot be calculated from incidence and mortality rates, as any good epidemiologist knows," the group said in a statement.
Dr. Gratzer dismissed the Commonwealth Fund's statement, saying the group had "an ideological bias." Asked if Mr. Giuliani would continue to repeat the statistic, and if the advertisement would continue to run, Ms. Comella responded by e-mail: "Yes. We will."
As Media Matters noted, Michael Dobbs of The Washington Post wrote in an October 30 Fact Checker post: "[T]he survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain." Dobbs wrote:
"When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless," said Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute. "You are identifying many people who would not otherwise be diagnosed."
Another way of comparing treatment of prostate cancer in the U.S. and Britain is to look at the mortality rates from the disease. Here the two countries are much closer. The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
From Bosman's November 7 article in The New York Times:
At a breast cancer forum here, she [Judith Giuliani] pledged that a Giuliani administration would provide resources and support for people with cancer.
[...]
Elizabeth Kucinich, the British-born wife of a Democratic presidential candidate, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, was also at the forum.
Wearing a long pink coat that matched the ribbons worn by many breast-cancer survivors in the room, Mrs. Kucinich spoke about Britain's health care system.
"We really have an affordable health care system, and I don't see why America is afflicted with a system where we have insurance companies in business who make money not providing health care," Mrs. Kucinich said, as the audience broke into loud applause.
Mr. Giuliani has repeatedly criticized Britain's health care system and said that the Democratic candidates were calling for a similar system of "socialized medicine." (In fact, most of the Democrats say they advocate plans to extend coverage to the uninsured, not plans for government-provided health care.)
Mrs. Giuliani had already left by the time Mrs. Kucinich spoke.
Nancy Bardsley, a breast cancer survivor at the forum, said she was impressed by Mrs. Giuliani and planned to vote for her husband.
"She seems very nice, very driven, very intelligent," Ms. Bardsley said. "I think she should make more speeches."
Why is the U.S. five years ahead on Britian in PSA testing? And why are men diagnosed here in far earlier stages than in Britian? Could it be the quality of our health care and research here as compared to Britian?
Quality always improves when there is free market competition.....just look at lasik eye surgery and how much more expensive it was just a few years ago, and how the quality has improved dramatically since.
We don't need government to take it over and remove that incentive.
Tommy, do you believe we do have a problem with healthcare and uninsured americans? If yes what would you suggest as an alternative solution to the problem?
Of course we have healthcare problems, however I do not believe that involving government in some huge bureaucratic nightmare is the answer.
I am not smart enough to have some cure-all solution, but I am smart enough to know that government should have as limited involvement as absolutely necessary.
Tommy I agree with you, we have major healthcare problems in this country, I do not think many people doubt this. However what is the answer? Do we want the government handling this, like they do Homeland Security and the FAA ? I do not want the government involved at all. I want every american to have access to healthcare and every child to have a healthcare plan regardless. I would like to see a plan that does that and also gives tax incentives to make this happen.
Sue, I think the government is more then capable of managing this...just look at how they handle schip or medicare or medicaid. Sure there are things that can be improved but overall these are beneficial and positive government programs to address the issues of unisured americans. What exactly would you favor as an alternative solution?
Lostlogic,
The alternative is obviously the same flawed system we currently have. The silence from the other side for alternatives is deafening.
Any solution is going to have at least some level of taxation and/or government involvement, which can be minimal. Either way, the mere thought of government involvement at all seems to send most conservatives into a palsy of kneejerking and frothing at the mouth ranting "Socialism!" over and over.
I like what Romney did in Massachussetts, but conservatives have even harshly criticized that. In Romney's plan the government buys private health insurance instead of giving the money to hospitals.
The bottom line is conservatives will usually agree that there is a problem, but few will ever agree to anything substantial that actually tries to do anything about it.
Tommy, that is a dodge you are denigrating the solutions put on the table and then say you admit there is a problem but don't offer an alternative. I don't think increasing insured is goign to become a big bureaucratic nightmare...this is a program that has been operational for some time and appears to be supported on a bipartisan basis and believed to be a well respect program. The thing many are asking for is to expand these type of programs to insure more americans. The scrae tactic of socialized medicine is just that a scare tactic that is not what is being proposed by most. Personally, I am a fan of capitalism but I also don't believe in entirely unchecked capitalism. Capitalism would not be effected by increasing the insured although I do believe it should be in the issue of health care restricted in certain areas. For instance I do not think it is ok for the insurance companies to deny coverage to what they deem high risk applicants...in the issue of healthcare I think this is an area when it is responsible to have regulations.
It's not a dodge, I gave you my honest answer. Just because I don't sign on to some government run health care then I am invalidated because I don't offer the alternate perfect solution. I am telling you what I believe would be far more injurious to our health care system than even the current situation, and that is what Edwards and many of the Democrats propose....I don't support it, if that is a dodge to you, so be it.
Tommy, I meant a dodge in that you aknowledge we have a problem but don't offer a solution just complain about solutions offered up. Would you favor doing nothing? I just want an idea of what someone who doesn't favor the current solutions would suggest we do to address the growing problem. Don't you have any ideas even if they are not completley thought out. I am just looking for some discussion about alternatives. frankley I haven't heard any and am interested in hearing some.
Lost, I am also willing to listen to all proposals by the specific candidates - I believe the solution involves all parties affected, from health care professionals to insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, administrators and so on. I cannot tell you what I want in detail, I am telling you what I don't want.
If that is unsatisfactory for you, then I am sorry.
Tommy, it has nothing to do with being unsatisfactory to me. I was simply looking to discuss the issue. If you aren't interested in discussing it that's your right...I will move on.
I just don't see how you are going to get a solution here without some government intervention at some level. If there was a pure free market solution, it would seem to have happened already.
It's not a dodge, I gave you my honest answer. Just because I don't sign on to some government run health care then I am invalidated because I don't offer the alternate perfect solution. Tommy
You are SURE that government programs don’t and won’t work BUT YOU have NO alternative. What invalidates your opinion is the very fact that you are so sure on the one hand and so unsure on the other! If one does not work one must have some idea of something that would or could possibly work especially involving health-care for thousands of Americans.
Lost, if you don't think insurance companies should be able to reject high-risk applicants, then you have to support the government picking them up in some sort of healthcare plan, or completely scrapping the "free-market" side of health insurance.
dex, no I think the industry can be regulated as many industries are.
Lost, what's your regulation idea then that would allow insurance companies to maintain profitability and take on customers who will very likely cost more than they pay?
Dex, I don't neccessarily agree with the premis of your question. I do think it may effect profitability but I don't think it will eliminate profitability. The majority of us pay into a system that we don't come any where near breaking even on so there is much profit to be had in the industry. Perhaps there could be some government funded subsidizing for the high risk group. I am not really sure. I just know that not giving insurance to this group is not an answer...medical costs are too high for the majority to bear without insurance. I am open to other ideas but that is what I think is a viable solution.
Lost, I would argue that the solution is to provide the high-riskers with gov funded healthcare vs. sticking private business with it.
Dex, I am a little confused and just want to clarify when you say government funded healthcare are you refering to government funded insurance or actual government healthcare providers? I would not favor the providers and would perfer to see government subsidizing the insurance for this group to offset the risk. remeber even those in a highrisk group may not fully utilize thear coverage it is just a precaution due to the increased risk.
Lost, I am advocating some sort of government-funded insurance for them, not a government treatment provider. I don't see another way, besides completely dissolving private health insurance providers.
Dex, thanks for the clarification. Based on your clarification I do not think we are that far apart in our ideas. I was just throwing out that in addition to fully funded they could also consider some type of subsidy to the companies providing high risk insurance. I also think that if the risk is one of direct choice that it is reasonable to increase the rates to that person. However if the risk is not through direct choice then I do not think they should be punished for factors out of their control.
The majority of us pay into a system that we don't come any where near breaking even on so there is much profit to be had in the industry.
Lost, so true. I have paid into the system for for years and years I have taken care of my health needs and I've had breast cancer. I've lost weight when needed, changed my diet when needed and changed my life style when needed and I'm a 73 year old senior, I cost the health industry pennies but I pay more than what I put into the system.
We are the greatest nation and I cannot accept that we can not provide basics health-care for our citizens.
Also, Lost........speaking of dodge, I see you dodged my questions in my first post about our system vs. England's. But that's ok.
Sorry...the question wasn't directly addressed to me and I was more interested in the issue I posted about. But to answer your question now that you asked I am not sure why we have earlier screening. Perhaps it is because we have more education about it...I am not sure what kind of push England does for early detection promotion. Also I don't doubt that there are some areas of research we may excel at just as there are some areas other nations excel at in the health are...usually it has to do with where the emphasis and prevalence is placed. For example I have read that Israel is very advanced on spinal cord injury apparently because of the large amount of cases they see due to bombings over there. I also don't think helath insurance effects research that would come more from grants and a different type of public and private funding for it. Giving americans health insurance will in my opinion have no effect on research. So as I said I do not favor eliminating capitalism just regulating it and government assistance and programs to insure all americans are provided with medical insurance.
I am not sure what kind of push England does for early detection promotion. Lost
Lost, I'm sure Tommy is aware that England has different philosophies dealing with prostate cancer than American doctor's which could be part of the reason for the small difference in mortality rates although survivability rates are closer than some would want us to believe.
Tommy, if you are not in favor of gov't run health care, how do you feel about a gov't paid insurance plan for all those who choose to join it, i.e. expansion of medicaid to anyone who wants to join it. The medical professionals would not be gov't employees, but would receive their fees from the gov't instead of a private health insurance company. Those who did not trust the gov't could still choose to buy their own private insurance.
It seems clear to me that in a system like this, the gov't plan would beat out the private plans in a free market environment through much lower overhead and better coverage. My evidence for this is how much better medicaid and the va currently perform compared to the private companies.
I am not smart enough to have some cure-all solution, but I am smart enough to know that government should have as limited involvement as absolutely necessary Tommy.
Not smart enough but knows enough for limited government. Oxymoron?
The free market of health care is not the problem.
The free market of health care insurance is.
The insurance industry has had plenty of opportunity to decrease premiums and increase coverage by way of competition. As a result of their noble, free-market efforts, premiums have increased at 6 times the rate of inflation, and their profit margins remain intact by way of denying a sufficient amount of claims.
Pete, there are of course bad-apple stories, but insurance companies make their money by only writing profitable business, not by denying claims just because. That's why we need the government to come into the insurance market; even if you increased competition, the risk involved in taking certain people with serious health issues on is too much for any insurance company to take on.
I agree. In my mind, that is the only workable solution. The profit motive would remain untouched, the quality of care should remain the same. The government would just subsidize insurance for those who either can't afford it or can't get it because of pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately, nobody is proposing such a plan. Healthcare reform is dead for at least the next Presidential term. Hillary's plan will never pass, and the Republicans sure as hell won't offer up any kind of plan. The status quo is safe for now.
The same thing may need to happen for property/homeowner's insurance as well, as I'm sure you've seen the recent articles about homeowners in coastal areas having a harder time finding affordable insurance.
Dex -
Property insurance is a much different issue than health insurance. You only need property insurance if you own property. You pay more for insurance if you CHOOSE to live in a riskier area (i.e. hurricane, earthquake zones)
Health insurance is something that everyone should have. Getting sick is not a choice. Living an unhealthy lifestyle is a choice, which is why insurers charge more for smokers, etc.
Kyle, if you get sick because of an unhealthy lifestyle, what do you do then?
And, if an insurance company is private, they too have a "choice" on whether you're too risky to insure or not.
Dex - I was merely pointing out the differences between property and health insurance. They are very different things, so drawing the analogy of insurance companies that won't write coastal business isn't valid. Full disclosure - I work for a private insurer, and one of our mottos is "there are no bad risks, only bad rates"
If you lead an unhealthy lifestyle, you should expect to pay more for health insurance. If you get sick due to your lifestyle, you should be prepared for the financial consequences.
Pete, you're absolutely right.
The problem is very simple: the critical element in any free-market system is consumer CHOICE.
Our medical insurance system does not offer this.The relative value of performance versus cost cannot be evaluated until the service is required, and at that point, if the service rendered is inadequate, it's often too late to choose another comparable product, due to the old "pre-existing condition" disqualifier.
Missing also is portability. Once enrolled in a program, a consumer cannot simply choose to switch providers at a moment's notice if rates increase or coverage is reduced -- there is generally a waiting period before coverage is activated. The consumer is put at risk, or else forced to pay for two products at the same time in order to maintain bridge coverage.
These measures are established for the protection of the insurance companies, and they're not unreasonable given the environment those comapnies face. But those protective provisions interfere with the smooth operation of a true free-market systemn, and also give the companies the opportunity to deny coverage when otherwise warranted, or to embrace fine-print loopholes to deliver less coverage than the consumer was led to understand, and they can do this with virtually no marketplace impact.
Arch, your post is good in theory, but it doesn't matter if there is 1,000,000,000 providers in the market, no one is going to pick up a 30-year old 2-pack-a-day obese person with prostate cancer.
Tommy, Of course the saying that that the US has the best health care that money can buy is a cliché now but it’s the truth. The distribution of that care is absolutely uneven and lots of people get no care because they can’t afford it. I work with cancer health data and I do know that PSA screenings have greatly increased survival rates for prostate cancer patients as other screening initiatives have done for breast cancer and colorectal cancer. Cancer screening programs are advocated in some states and most of the states that are the biggest advocates have instituted programs that will pay for cancer treatment via tax funded state programs for patients that do not have insurance or finances for treatment. You can use your imagination as to which states do that, they’re Liberal states and a libertarian like you would consider them high taxing states, so the Liberal states are driving that great stat Giuliani want’s to brag about. Maryland is one of those states. But if you do a breakdown of cancer statistics state by state and further by race, ethnicity and income status well the statistics aren’t all that surprising. You may have a 100% screening and very high cure rates for some jurisdictions and very high mortality and morbity rates in other jurisdictions and you can use your imagination where those states are and which jurisdictions have the good outcomes and the bad outcomes. This is why the American Cancer Society has spearheaded a campaign to make us aware of the problems of the uninsured and their poor outcomes with cancer: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Uninsured_More_Often_Diagnosed_with_Advanced_Cancer.asp
Thanks lynn. What a surprise, the country with the richest people miraculously have the best access to screening and treatment and thus the highest rates of surviving. As usual, once the under lying data are revealed the "stat" thrown around is misleading. Remember, if I ride in an elevator with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet my "average" wealth skyrockets to $15 billion! What a lucky day for me!
I've seen a number of free marketers point at Lasik as some sort of brilliant example of how wonderful the free market can be in regards to health care. Unfortunately it is not an appropriate point of comparison. Lasik is an optional procedure. Nobody needs Lasik surgery to live. Most insurance plans will not cover it. This is why it has to be aggressively marketed and competitively priced.
The existence of medical insurance, whether it be private or government, prevents any sort of real free market conditions from effecting the health care system.
The market can be a great tool for innovation and progress when it works properly. Unfortunately it tends to break down badly when dealing with products or services that cannot be simply commoditized, such as health care or energy.
Judith needs to be more direct on why she helped kill dogs in the late 80s. Then we can take her seriously about healthcare.
Mr. Giuliani has repeatedly criticized Britain's health care system and said that the Democratic candidates were calling for a similar system of "socialized medicine." (In fact, most of the Democrats say they advocate plans to extend coverage to the uninsured, not plans for government-provided health care.)
What gives these people the right to be critical of the British healthcare system when they have never ran or organized a healthcare system before? Rudy is not qualified to be President. End of Story.
Well, if your qualification standard is running a healthcare system, you disqualify all the candidates who weren't governors, right?
Bob, I don't thinknot having actually run something disqualifies a person from critically analyzing something. The real issue is whether or not the person is actually informed and educated on the subject. My problem with them using these particular statistics is they are questionable and irrelevant as a measurement of effectiveness of the program as has been explained.
Rudy is not qualified to be President. End of Story
Ok Bob, but who ever is? Bush 43? In your world what do you need to have done to be President?
There's nothing wrong with our public healthcare system. It's not without issues, but it guarantees access for everybody. You can even go private if you want treatment faster and want to pay for it.
Guiliani clearly knows nothing about the NHS.
Universal health care is not "socialized health care." It is merely public funding of it. Just as public education is not "socialized education." It's merely the public funding of education.
Not a good analogy to use if you're trying to convince that public funding for health care will be a good thing!! haha.
Tman, great point. I was talking about this with the hubby the other day and I thought it was just like publically funded education. We seem to have no issue with the wealth of those using that system. I went to public school and it was filled with children of wealthy parents. I don't recall any debate about whether or not they should be allowed to use publically funded education.
Fine then let's end private insurance altogether & just have only government funded insurance, cause I sure as hell don't fancy paying my private insurance bill & your government funded bill. That's a double whack.
Hi jeter, I wonder what the actual cost to the individual tax payer would be to fund these programs. Usually it is very slight due to the numbers paying in. Does anyone know if there are numbers about the actual cost to individual taxpayers would be for some of these ideas to fund? If the cost is slight I would think you would be getting alot of bang for your buck and offsetting other things that cost the tax payer money on healthcare.
Hey LostLogic :-)
Well that was my knee-jerk opinion.
Actually I have thought about this & I'd rather see each STATE deal with health insurance rather than the Federal Government. While Medicaid/Medicare has run smoothly enough, adding several million more to a Federal Government plan might be an overload waiting to be a disaster. The more the Feds take on, the more they are apt to fail. My opinion.
Each STATE could offer insurance to folks making less than $50,000 or whatever number they settle on depending on whether one is single, married, married with children.
The folks buying into Government insurance could have a % taken out of their pay, the rest could be covered by taxes, lottery profits, whatever. It would be up to each STATE on how they want to fund it. Those that aren't working would be covered 100% temporarily till they are working.
Not a perfect plan. Probably not something that hasn't been suggested before.
But as long as the Federal Government doesn't get involved I'm willing to listen.
Jeter, I understand the response I have the same knee jerk reaction when my accountant tells me how much I have to pay each year...grrr )-:
I agree that the state has to carry a portion of the funding. I think the federal and state need to both contribute...as they do in many programs. I don't think individual states can bear the burden alone. When it gets divided up federally there is a much larger pool it is spread across making it less of a burden to the tax payer. I think some states would be crippled if they had to bear the cost "in-house" so to speak.
Fine then let's end private insurance altogether & just have only government funded insurance, cause I sure as hell don't fancy paying my private insurance bill & your government funded bill. That's a double whack. Jeter
Jeter you pay it somewhere. If the uninsured in your community needs services who pays for it? The hospital? Who passes it on to whom, the state? Who passes it on to whom? And if they don't pass it on, it will effect the quality of health-care you receive from your local hospital. The uninsured often wait, because of the lack of insurance, to see a physician which usually means whatever health-care crisis they have is much worse than if they had seen a physician earlier. They required MORE medical treatment. The bottom line is we pay for it somewhere so why not find a way that pays for it in some type of reasonable way? Hospitals treat people, period. Insured or uninsured, they must be treated. When the uninsured are treated, local hospitals have to cover the cost how? If local governments have to cover the cost, it gets passed on to state government and then what? It will effect you someway somehow, that's the bottom line. You and I are paying for the uninsured even though they are all not being treated. Why not find a way to use preventive medicine and reduce cost's rather than let the uninsured come into emergency rooms and increase costs.
Hi Pearlene, Spot on post. We do pay for it and that is a fact. There are things that I think are a waste of my tax money but health care certainly wouldn't be one of them. I consider that a good use of my contribution to the "pot". I think there is alot of misunderstanding and misinformation about this issue with the general public and I think if the real facts were laid out without all the rhetoric and scare tactics most would support some form of funding to have americans covered.
And doctors also say it is unfair to compare prostate cancer statistics in Britain with those in the United States because in the United States the cancer is more likely to be diagnosed in its early stages.
This is kind of an endorsement of the US's quality vs. Britain, isn't it?
In fact, most of the Democrats say they advocate plans to extend coverage to the uninsured, not plans for government-provided health care.
This is really the crux of the argument. Conservatives who argue that the Dem's healthcare proposals (with the exception maybe of Edwards) are parallel to socialized medicine are not paying attention.
"kind of an endorsement of the US's quality vs. Britain, isn't it?"
Sure, if you're limiting your discussion of "US quality vs. Britain's" to the single issue of prostate cancer diagnosis.
If, however, you think that a more expansive view of the comparison might include other factors, such as overall satisfaction with the system, percentage of a population with access to health care, or the risk to financial health that members of each society faces when diagnosed with a serious medical condition, then one's judgment might get a little more complicated.
Just saying.
Arch, the fact was brought up to somehow dispute the PARTICULAR difference in the mortality rates of prostate cancer patients.
Just saying.
Hmmm... I wonder what the [organ] cancer survival rate in this country for those who don't have insurance is.
The free market does foster incentive, but we don't have a free market, nor do we have comeptition. Can I choose my doctor/medicine/hospital/procedure? No. My insurer pretty much does that. Can I pick my insurer? Nope. My employer does that. And both make their choice on the basis of COST not QUALITY. If you don't have CHOICE, then you don't have COMPETITION, and you don't have a FREE MARKET.
Yes - I DO believe that the Gov't could do a better job than insures, mainly becuase they answer to the people. Something we dont like? Lobby congress to change it. GOOD LUCK doing that to an insurance company. They don't cover it... (like, for example, most don't cover ANY services for Autism treatment) ...then you're $#!+ outta luck. If the gov't runs it? Patients groups would have a say in it, MUCH MORE SO than with the current system.
Right wing fears of this come form two things: (1) COST: But this is an illusion. We are already subsidising the unisured anyway. Plus, costs go DOWN when treatment is started earlier, which only happens when people are covered. (The uninsured don't go to the hospital until they are dying.)Whats more, if hospitals KNOW that they will be paid for each and every patient, they won't have to pass on the cost incurred by everyone who skips out without paying onto the rest of us. (2) LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFIT: If the gov't system was well run, insurers couldn't make huge profits sellign policies. And what do these guys do anyway? The doctors do all the work. All these bozos do is take my money, and figure out ways not to give it back to me.
I'm ready to try something else. The current system does nto work, and gets worse every year.
Niceguy, if the gov. took over all the insurance, you wouldn't have a choice either.
If you don't like the benefits (including insurance) package that your employer has, you can CHOOSE to get another job. I've switched jobs before for a better benefit situation.
Since, in theory, the government couldn't deny you insurance, they (TRUST ME) will begin to deny you other things: fatty foods, cigarettes, TV...
I don't trust you. The government can't take away anything we don't let them. You know - that whole democracy thing? And, you know ,the Constituion, Bill of Right, life, liberty, etc... Bush hasn't done so complete a job of destroiying these things that the government will be able to simply TAKE AWAY the things you MENTIONED. (If no one else, there will still be the ALCU!)
And I shouldn't have to change jobs, especially as I have a good job (something many people don't have), just to get decent health coverage. That kind of thinking is indicitive that there are serious problems with the current system.
And how can you conclude that there won't be any choice? You are making rather a few assumptions about the the hypothetical plan in reaching that conclusion. I can concieve of a gov't financed system that allows near total choice. It's not a foregone conclusion that all of the mistakes of the past must be repeated.
You are very optimistic. It's all speculation for both of our points, of course.
There would still be potential for profit. There will always be treatments and drugs etc. that the govt plan does pay for. Private insurers will offer products that will cover the govt denied treatments, simple. Further, once the pool of payees is increased to all adults, the cost per payee will drop dramatically. The current cost of insurance is partly (mostly?) due to some insurance companies cherry picking young healthy customers and refusing older sicker customers. The older sicker customers are forced into group policies thus making that pool , older sicker and thus paying more and more as the pool gets sicker and older.
For instance, my wife and I get our insurance from her employer and it costs us about $1,000/month. Her assistant is 25 and fit, she can get great coverage for about $250 a month through the group, or get just catastrophe insurance for $125 month with a private plan. Naturally she chooses the cheaper so she can make her ARM and not lose her home.
"govt plan does NOT pay for" Sorry
PIT, please dont mistake me for someone who believes the world will stop turning if the healthcare insurance industry was no longer profitable.
In an effort to establish some common ground with Tommy and like-minded commentators, I wonder if they would be willing to step back a bit and answer the following three questions?Thus, when you – I'll address this to Tommy, since he appears to be particularly vocal on the matter -- say you are against "government run health care" are you saying:1. I am against a system, as in the UK, where the government not only finances health care as the single payer of health insurance (GSP), with the money for that insurance coming from public taxes, but also owns and operates (GOO) the health care delivery system from the hospitals and clinics down through the doctors and the technicians, who are state employees. It's actually not quite that clean cut even in the UK, but as a "center of gravity" characterization, this is close enough and I'll assume that this is more or less what Tommy has in mind when he says he is against socialized medicine, that is, he is against both GSP and GOO (where the G stands for Government). But Tommy should speak for himself.2. Not only am I against GSP and GOO, but I am also against the Government playing ANY role in providing health insurance at all, i.e., I am against the Government being even a Partial payer of health insurance (GPP), even if those insurance monies flow through the private for-profit or not-for-profit sectors (POO). Doncha just luv the acronyms!3. In addition to asking Tommy whether he endorses statements #1 and/or #2, I would be interested to hear him clarify what it is he thinks "Edwards and many of the Democrats" are proposing. That is, as you understand it Tommy, are "Edwards and many of the Democrats" (which specific ones would be helpful to know) are proposing a version of #1 for the US, i.e., a UK style GSP/GOO system, or are they proposing a version of #2, , i.e., a GPP/POO system?Feel free to go on and anticipate any further questions or observations you think I might have once you have answered these rather straightforward questions #1-#3. But do try to answer them first, and then we'll see if we can proceed any further in the discussion, based on a common understanding of what the basic terms of the debate are.