[zcaveman]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Its interesting that the majority of people on Medicare like Medicare.

You do realize that since 1965 you have been paying into Medicare as part of your FICA taxes? Don't you think that you should get your money back?

If the government had invested all of the money that they have taxed out of us for SS and Medicare into the right places and not stolen it for other programs, these programs would be solvent for ages.

Z

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Sorry, 1) I thought the heading of the article sounded too political 2) I'm not good at providing links unless the address is short and 3) I figured someone would recognize the issue and eventually provide a link.


If it might help the conversation stay focused, I'll provide the proper search phrase now so that someone can provide the link:

This is it: Democrats borrow a GOP idea in proposal to help control health care costs

"Borrowing a Republican idea, a group including former senior Obama and Clinton advisors is unveiling a novel proposal to let states take the lead in controlling health costs"



Democrats Borrow a GOP Idea on Health Care Costs - ABC News

[Pointer]

I believe Vermont is having great success with its single payer state run programs. Having lived by the Canadian boarder for many years and having had a child who spent 6 years going to school there, I can say that I knew a lot of people who preferred that system to ours. Especially when it came to catastrophic care. ie pregnancy or birth complications and cancer. Canadians sure don't want to get rid of their medical system for ours. I'm benefiting from Obama Care now that I'm here in Florida and know many others who are as well. My attitude was and is still a wait and see how it works one. And so far so good. So I'm willing to entertain a state by state single payer system as a possible improvement. With so many more people now having coverage I'm looking forward to the reduced costs of the now preventative health care vs the more costly emergency care.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Rags123

"Borrowing a Republican idea, a group including former senior Obama and Clinton advisors is unveiling a novel proposal to let states take the lead in controlling health costs"



Democrats Borrow a GOP Idea on Health Care Costs - ABC News

Thanks again, you're on the ball!!!

[Bavarian]

Originally Posted by Tennisnut

Sounds like the Mayo clinic needs to implement some cost controls since other facilities can provide services under the MediCare fee schedule. I know for example, a MRI can run from $1500 to $5000. Why is there that much variation in cost?

I want to be able to go to the top of the line Mayo Clinic. I do not want a Government at any level control where I or my wife can go for treatment. If cost exceeds Insurance levels, we should be able to pay the difference if we want.

The Canadian Single Payer does not allow it. In Germany, socialized and Private Insurance are both available.

If Canadian so good, why do they come to US for treatment. There are hospitals and clinics built right along the US Canadian border. They must pay cash as we would do out of US, but we can put in a claim for some reimbursement later, can the Canadians? What do you do when you are in US and need a Doctor?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Bavarian

I want to be able to go to the top of the line Mayo Clinic. I do not want a Government at any level control where I or my wife can go for treatment. If cost exceeds Insurance levels, we should be able to pay the difference if we want.

The Canadian Single Payer does not allow it. In Germany, socialized and Private Insurance are both available.

If Canadian so good, why do they come to US for treatment. There are hospitals and clinics built right along the US Canadian border. They must pay cash as we would do out of US, but we can put in a claim for some reimbursement later, can the Canadians? What do you do when you are in US and need a Doctor?

The same thing we do when we're living in Europe and need a doctor--either take out medical insurance or pay cash. And believe you me, the cost for the same medical care in France and Spain, where I've had experience, is a helluva lot cheaper than it is in the US.

And I would like to see some facts to back up your statement about Canadians flocking to the US for medical care. Because according to this site, that is the #1 myth about Canadian healthcare. Canada vs. US Health Care Systems - Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths - AARP

I will quote part: 99.39% of Canadians do not come to the US for medical care.

[blueash]

I read the ABC news few paragraphs describing this suggestion. My summary would be that as the Federal Government is paralyzed and that now that the economy is improving there seems to be an upswing in health care expenses we "need" to do something. That something cannot be divert dollars from some other aspect of government toward healthcare nor can it be increase taxes to provide for those services. As DC can't perhaps each state would decide what to do to control costs. If the Federal Government saves money on whatever plan the state invents, they will share the savings with the state. There will be measurement of costs to include both public and private insurance. There will be a list of essential services which cannot be cut. Costs could not be shifted to patients.

On its face who could object to such a plan? How would a state decrease costs with things they control? The easiest ways are to make getting care less convenient but still available. You want an MRI? Those are expensive, definitely overused and sadly often contribute more to the income of the provider than to the management of the patient. So let's do 2 simple things. All MRI's must be approved by an agency. No new MRI's will be installed in the state without a certificate of need to limit the use of these machines. Does every orthopedic doctor need his own MRI and CT? Does she order those tests because it is really needed or because they own the machine? If only hospitals had MRI machines there would still be some in every county and I guarantee a whole lot fewer MRI's would be done. Multiply this kind of thinking which does not deny services, does not shift costs to patients, and likely does not lower the quality of care and the state saves millions every year. Now apply that process to lots of medical high cost procedures. Does this sound good to you?

[rubicon]

The OP asked members opinion of state run vis a vis federally run health care. Health care is one of those issues that can never be covered here.

First everyone seems to be talking about the payer system and not health care itself. This country is not doing a good job of dealing with this critical issue. I believe the remedy is to let the market settle it. I believe the government and private insurance companies need to take a step back and give the medical community room to do their jobs. Far top many doctors are losing their passion for medicine.

I was never one for central planning and bureacuracy because such a system is too big too clumsy. Our government is so large that departments are tripping over one another especially issuing conflicting or redundant regulations

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Bavarian

If Canadian so good, why do they come to US for treatment. There are hospitals and clinics built right along the US Canadian border. They must pay cash as we would do out of US, but we can put in a claim for some reimbursement later, can the Canadians? What do you do when you are in US and need a Doctor?

I'm Canadian, and I don't know anyone who goes to the USA for treatment.
I suppose there are people who want to have a knee replacement in two weeks rather than wait two months.
In that case, if they are wealthy, perhaps they have the surgery done in the US?
Please see CFrance's information below.

When we are living in our Villages home for six months, we buy a comprehensive travel insurance policy to cover us for critical illnesses.
If I were able to travel, I would fly back to Canada for treatment.
If I need to see a doctor for a minor problem, or have an allergy shot, I pay cash (rates are much lower for self-payers).

Originally Posted by CFrance

[/B]
I would like to see some facts to back up your statement about Canadians flocking to the US for medical care. Because according to this site, that is the #1 myth about Canadian healthcare. Canada vs. US Health Care Systems - Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths - AARP
I will quote part: 99.39% of Canadians do not come to the US for medical care.

[tedquick]

Originally Posted by Rags123

Her complete statement IN CONTEXT...

"Exxon Mobil and other oil giants continue to run up record profits to maintain the status quo even as Americans struggle to pay the high costs of heating their homes, fueling their cars, and meeting the mounting challenges of a growing economic crisis. And too many in Washington have stood in the way of the changes we need to chart a new energy strategy for our nation that breaks our dependence on foreign oil, reduces global warming pollution, and creates millions of new green collar jobs. I have proposed that we eliminate the tax breaks for big oil companies like Exxon Mobil and use that money to establish a Strategic Energy Fund to speed development of clean energy technology, put more efficient cars on the road, create new jobs, and provide immediate energy relief for the middle class as we head into what could be a difficult winter."

Read more: Clinton Blasts Exxon Mobil's Record Profits | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

She did indeed say exactly what you said, however those were not the only words that she has ever spoken with regards to Exxon. The statements I quoted were not made up, in fact, they were copied from my referenced article. BTW, here are some other facts about Exxon in 2011 and I copy: Often ignored fact: ExxonMobil makes pennies per gallon on gasoline, diesel and petroleum products it refines and sells in the United States. In the first and second quarters of this year, ExxonMobil made 7 cents and 8 cents, respectively, on the gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products it refined and sold in the United States. Comparatively, local, state and federal gasoline taxes average nearly 49 cents per gallon nationally, with a high of 67 cents in states such as California and New York.

Another way of saying it is that Exxon pays more in local, state and federal gasoline taxes to the tune of 6 to 7 times as much as is their profit. With that being the case, this question must be asked: Who is the greedy one, the one who makes 7 cents per gallon in profit or the entity who takes 49 cents a gallon from you and me in taxes?

A correction here -- Exxon does not pay more in taxes than is its profit, instead you and I pay those taxes to the tune or 6 to nearly 10 times (in some cases) what Exxon's profits are. Sorry for my mis-statement. But, who is greedy?

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by Pointer

I believe Vermont is having great success with its single payer state run programs. Having lived by the Canadian boarder for many years and having had a child who spent 6 years going to school there, I can say that I knew a lot of people who preferred that system to ours. Especially when it came to catastrophic care. ie pregnancy or birth complications and cancer. Canadians sure don't want to get rid of their medical system for ours. I'm benefiting from Obama Care now that I'm here in Florida and know many others who are as well. My attitude was and is still a wait and see how it works one. And so far so good. So I'm willing to entertain a state by state single payer system as a possible improvement. With so many more people now having coverage I'm looking forward to the reduced costs of the now preventative health care vs the more costly emergency care.

Sounds good to me! Too bad many more people have not heard these positive experiences and expectations. I have just found out my health premiums are decreasing next year!

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by tedquick

She did indeed say exactly what you said, however those were not the only words that she has ever spoken with regards to Exxon. The statements I quoted were not made up, in fact, they were copied from my referenced article. BTW, here are some other facts about Exxon in 2011 and I copy: Often ignored fact: ExxonMobil makes pennies per gallon on gasoline, diesel and petroleum products it refines and sells in the United States. In the first and second quarters of this year, ExxonMobil made 7 cents and 8 cents, respectively, on the gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products it refined and sold in the United States. Comparatively, local, state and federal gasoline taxes average nearly 49 cents per gallon nationally, with a high of 67 cents in states such as California and New York.

Another way of saying it is that Exxon pays more in local, state and federal gasoline taxes to the tune of 6 to 7 times as much as is their profit. With that being the case, this question must be asked: Who is the greedy one, the one who makes 7 cents per gallon in profit or the entity who takes 49 cents a gallon from you and me in taxes?

A correction here -- Exxon does not pay more in taxes than is its profit, instead you and I pay those taxes to the tune or 6 to nearly 10 times (in some cases) what Exxon's profits are. Sorry for my mis-statement. But, who is greedy?

And what does this have to do with health care costs?

[wendyquat]

Originally Posted by tedquick

LoriAnn, you wrote: WellPoint had a profit of 38%.

I question the veracity of your informational source. In 2008, WellPoint had an after-tax profit of 4.1% of revenues. That same year the healthcare insurance industry as a whole ranked 35th (out of the 53 identified industries) with a profit of 2.2% of revenue. They were surpassed by both the healthcare facilities industry (34th) and the pharmaceutical industry (ranked 30th) with a meager 3.0% of revenue profit, hardly an enviable number. The before -tax profit of WellPoint in 2013 was 5.4% of revenue, down from 6.2% in 2012. Those numbers seem quite modest to me.

You are proposing a single-payer system. Allow me to offer the following example as one of dozens that could have been chosen: the Department of Energy was formed in 1977, in a large part to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. At that time we imported around 40% of our oil needs. 35 years later, in 2012 we still imported about 35% of those needs and yet, that year, for the first time ever, we produced as much oil as we used. Our oil industry has been able to create those kinds of resources in spite of the government’s contrarian attempts to slow production down.

So I must ask you: do you really want your healthcare needs to be handled by such incompetence? And we must never forget that the efforts driving us to a “single-payer system” are being orchestrated and propagandized by that same inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy.

Remember a few years ago when a politician thought that Exxon’s $40 billion profits were obscene and should be turned over to the government for redistribution? What was never mentioned was that Exxon had paid over 110 billion dollars in taxes that same year or nearly 3 times as much as they made in profit, but that important fact was ignored. That was politics and it was dirty because it misled those who were unaware.

This is not a political statement. Instead it is a statement of facts. It is a statement based on real numbers and it is intended to show that propaganda pieces only sell to those who are unaware.

As Ayn Rand said, “we can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality”.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by zcaveman

You do realize that since 1965 you have been paying into Medicare as part of your FICA taxes? Don't you think that you should get your money back?

If the government had invested all of the money that they have taxed out of us for SS and Medicare into the right places and not stolen it for other programs, these programs would be solvent for ages.

Z

Hey Frank. Z is right.

[tedquick]

Originally Posted by Tennisnut

And what does this have to do with health care costs?

My wife and I just had a bite to eat and I commented to her that where I ended up had nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. While I could tie big-government taxing into the healthcare discussion we would simply be too far afield from the original intent of the string. Sorry I got off track.