Advocacy & Safety - Article: Health care costs to top $8,000 per person (per year, in the USA)

The figure is amazing, not to mention insane ($670 every MONTH). The article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29355231/) notes that the costliest ailment to treat is heart disease and related things. Since an aerobic exercise program is one of the best ways to reduce the incidence and severity of heart disease, and cycling is one of many ways of getting aerobic exercise, IMO a really good case can be made to infrastructure funding. After all, the USA spends more per capita on health care than any other country; however, it is NOT the healthiest country (IIRC it ranks 7th or so) in the world. And all this ignores the effects of pollution, congestion, and such that increased cycling would also address.

FWIW, with a number this high, no amount of redistributing costs can make health care affordable for all. Only drastic reductions in the overall costs will do.

??????????? Someone is keeping the average low. I'm sure that I and my employer pay over $1,000 per month for mine.

Need to figure out how much of that is wasted and profit. IMHO Health Insurance and Health Care should not be for profit operations. Our company kicks in for our health care but the cost is still around $600 a month for family coverage. This has been an ongoing problem in this country for years. I USED to belong to an HMO that would give preventive care at no cost if you were a member, but that got cut out during one of their cost cutting, profit raising binges.

Aaron:)

The figure is amazing, not to mention insane ($670 every MONTH). The article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29355231/) notes that the costliest ailment to treat is heart disease and related things. Since an aerobic exercise program is one of the best ways to reduce the incidence and severity of heart disease, and cycling is one of many ways of getting aerobic exercise, IMO a really good case can be made to infrastructure funding. After all, the USA spends more per capita on health care than any other country; however, it is NOT the healthiest country (IIRC it ranks 7th or so) in the world. And all this ignores the effects of pollution, congestion, and such that increased cycling would also address.

FWIW, with a number this high, no amount of redistributing costs can make health care affordable for all. Only drastic reductions in the overall costs will do.

I had a heart attack in 2000 that was caused at least partially by a sedentary lifestyle. That cost my insurance company about a quarter million, and there are ongoing costs for them and me. I credit cycling and other exercise for not having a second heart attack...yet.

OTOH, I had a serious fall from my bike in 2005. I had surgery then, and a second operation just 4 months ago. The cost on that isn't in yet, but I think the total on the bike accident will be well over $50,000.

So we need to keep in mind that even though cycling will prevent or help reduce some medical expenses, it will also increase expenses. In my case at least, the balance has probably come out in favor of cycling.

Need to figure out how much of that is wasted and profit. IMHO Health Insurance and Health Care should not be for profit operations. Our company kicks in for our health care but the cost is still around $600 a month for family coverage. This has been an ongoing problem in this country for years. I USED to belong to an HMO that would give preventive care at no cost if you were a member, but that got cut out during one of their cost cutting, profit raising binges.

Aaron:)

I'm not sure how much is outright waste. I suppose that would depend on your definition of waste. But overhead and profit in the private health care sector runs about 25-30% of each insurance premium dollar.
Contrast that to the 2-3% overhead of programs like Medicare, SS, & Medicaid and let's hear that mantra of "gov't. can't do anything right/efficiently" again.
We need universal single payer healthcare in the U.S. We already have it with Medicare and it generally works fine. Drop the eligibility age and let the private ins. companies have the supplement/boutique market or go under completely. They add nothing of value to the healthcare system in the U.S.. They are parasites, pure and simple.

There is some real good information on the site of Physicians for a National Health Program.
http://www.pnhp.org/

The average cost is kept down in the US by the number of people who cant afford health care, so get sick and die. I dont think health care should be part of the cost of being employed, because people with high cost medical conditions can be kept out of jobs because the company cant afford the insurance. Public health, including polution control, clean water and sewage disposal, should be a government responsibility. The US government seems to be able to manage a very effective military, I would hate to see that privatized like it is in parts of S America.

Who's going to pay for it AndrewP???? While we're at it, I'm willing to bet less than half the population in this country has access to municipal sewer and water. The entitlement attitude is going to be the end of this country.

Wait, I see your from Canada, we see the effects of your medical system down here all the time, people who have to wait for treatment up there head south. Those who can afford it that is.

The figure is amazing, not to mention insane ($670 every MONTH). The article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29355231/) notes that the costliest ailment to treat is heart disease and related things. Since an aerobic exercise program is one of the best ways to reduce the incidence and severity of heart disease, and cycling is one of many ways of getting aerobic exercise, IMO a really good case can be made to infrastructure funding. After all, the USA spends more per capita on health care than any other country; however, it is NOT the healthiest country (IIRC it ranks 7th or so) in the world. And all this ignores the effects of pollution, congestion, and such that increased cycling would also address.

FWIW, with a number this high, no amount of redistributing costs can make health care affordable for all. Only drastic reductions in the overall costs will do.

I agree. I think fiscal benefits of a healthier nation are huge compared to the money needed to put a decent bike infrastructure needed to bring a large chunk of that about.

I know a TON of people that simply could not bike in Augusta, GA because there was absolutely no way to do it without riding on MAJOR roads. (45mph speed limit, 60mph traffic, no sidewalks, no shoulder) All you would need in a place like that is a few connecting paths from residential area to residential area and it would open up the whole city to bikes. But they would have to give up their title to 5th fattest city in the country. ;)

Who's going to pay for it AndrewP????

The same people who are paying for it now. The $600 a month that my employer pays for my policy, plus the co-pays and deductibles that I pay can go to the government. The goverenment will provide my health insurance on a non-profit basis. Without the 25 % profit markup, there will be revenues left over to fund that nationwide bike infrastructure and other preventive health programs.

FWIW, with a number this high, no amount of redistributing costs can make health care affordable for all. Only drastic reductions in the overall costs will do.

Yes it can. Per capita GDP in the US is $55k. So it's less than 20% of GDP. It is more than we spend on food, which is sad and another part of the problem. We could probably reduce diabetes by not subsidizing corn syrup.

Who's going to pay for it AndrewP???? While we're at it, I'm willing to bet less than half the population in this country has access to municipal sewer and water. The entitlement attitude is going to be the end of this country.

Wait, I see your from Canada, we see the effects of your medical system down here all the time, people who have to wait for treatment up there head south. Those who can afford it that is.

His argument had nothing to do with entitlement. His argument was that it's cost effective to give people healthcare to prevent sickness and death in the poor. He didn't word it very well but that appears to be the argument.

Currently we have insurance setup such that those who can't afford health insurance can't afford the fake price hospitals give non-insurance customers. That's ridiculous. You haggle or shop for everything except health care. We have no market in health care.

People in Canada live longer and pay less. People die due to lack of health care all around the world. Even in socialized medicine countries. Even in single payer countries (which isn't socialized medicine).

People in the US wait for treatment everyday. There are many reasons, here are a couple obvious ones:
* Scheduling. You wait for the best doctor or wait for one in your PPO.
* Deductibles. You want to arrange two or more big operations in the same year to get your insurer to actually pay.


Single payer isn't going to make health care suddenly cheap and it's not going to derail our entire medical system. Everyone is way too excited over this.

Employer payer healthcare is an incredibly idiotic idea. We actually rolled health in as a cost of hiring employees. We put serious disincentive to hiring older people. I wonder why retirement is so early now. Because we all secretly want to retire and live on less income than we need?

I'd have no problem with simply illegalizing employer healthcare benefits and illegalizing discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Markets can't solve the pre-existing condition issue. They will consistently push people in that situation off onto a pre-existing only insurer and those people will end up paying for their end of life health costs all at the end of their life: Not the purpose of insurance at all!

The reason markets will push that is because it's in each consumer's best interest to get the lowest cost complete health care. Since most don't have a condition they'll eliminate allowing in as many people as possible with conditions: Hence the "pre-existing" clause on virtually all insurance. Very few will just buy complete insurance up front. Everyone SHOULD buy complete insurance up front.

Health care isn't a right. But health insurance makes sense as a government program. It will put discussion of what should and shouldn't be insured in the public forum. When people are dissatisfied with the insurance they should be allowed to seek added insurance. Remember: Single payer not government run doctors.

Sorry people, government shouldn't be in the health care business or any other business for that matter. Just look at the current medicare system to see abject failure government bureaucracy. Look at the failure of our banking system due to Fannie and Freddie, both government sponsored entities run by bureaucrats into the ground. I honestly can't believe that any of you think the government can do anything cheaper than the private sector.

Sorry people, government shouldn't be in the health care business or any other business for that matter. Just look at the current medicare system to see abject failure government bureaucracy. Look at the failure of our banking system due to Fannie and Freddie, both government sponsored entities run by bureaucrats into the ground. I honestly can't believe that any of you think the government can do anything cheaper than the private sector.

I just saw the President's address to Congress. He sure made a liar out of you! :D

Ha, I saw it too, hold onto your wallet, it's about to be picked clean.......

The figure is amazing, not to mention insane ($670 every MONTH). The article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29355231/) notes that the costliest ailment to treat is heart disease and related things. Since an aerobic exercise program is one of the best ways to reduce the incidence and severity of heart disease, and cycling is one of many ways of getting aerobic exercise, IMO a really good case can be made to infrastructure funding. After all, the USA spends more per capita on health care than any other country; however, it is NOT the healthiest country (IIRC it ranks 7th or so) in the world. And all this ignores the effects of pollution, congestion, and such that increased cycling would also address.

Uh, no. The World Health Organization ranked health care systems back in 2000. The US came in at 37th, just ahead of Slovenia and Cuba. For life expectancy, the US ranked 28th in 2006, just ahead of Chile and Costa Rica.

The US possesses the world's most expensive health care, with a fragile system that fails utterly for ~43 million Americans by leaving them uninsured, fails for millions more by leaving them underinsured, and hamstrings businesses and employees by tying coverage to employment. All this and our health outcomes suck.

Ha, I saw it too, hold onto your wallet, it's about to be picked clean.......

No, my wallet's already empty from the copays and deductibles I have to pay.

I am looking forward to the Obama tax cut that will start on April 1. Then I'll have a few more bucks in my wallet. But I suppose you make more than a quarter-million a year, so you'll be one of the few Americans getting a tax increase. ;)

No, my wallet's already empty from the copays and deductibles I have to pay.

I am looking forward to the Obama tax cut that will start on April 1. Then I'll have a few more bucks in my wallet. But I suppose you make more than a quarter-million a year, so you'll be one of the few Americans getting a tax increase. ;)

Enjoy that $8 to $13 per week, I'm sure it will make a huge difference. Most of those making over $250,000 employ others in their small businesses, they'll be paying for that extra tax by reducing their payroll by a couple employees, there's some change you can believe in.

Three quarters of a million people are employed by the health insurance industry. What happens to them if the gov't takes over healthcare?

I agree. I think fiscal benefits of a healthier nation are huge compared to the money needed to put a decent bike infrastructure needed to bring a large chunk of that about.

I know a TON of people that simply could not bike in Augusta, GA because there was absolutely no way to do it without riding on MAJOR roads. (45mph speed limit, 60mph traffic, no sidewalks, no shoulder) All you would need in a place like that is a few connecting paths from residential area to residential area and it would open up the whole city to bikes. But they would have to give up their title to 5th fattest city in the country. ;)

And yet there is a whole class of cyclists that insists that no such accommodations are needed for cycling... There is a classic debate going on right now in the Vehicular Cycling sub forum regarding the auto centric environment in which many of us cycle... and how that situation is part of why folks won't even consider cycling. Take a look. http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8415004&postcount=157 (this is in the VC sub forum, so be forewarned about some of the attitudes you may encounter)

Yeah I tend to really agree with you... the only way that this nation is going to get fitter, AND less reliant on foreign oil, is for cycling and mass transit, and walking to be supported and accepted in lieu of the individual motor vehicle.

Three quarters of a million people are employed by the health insurance industry. What happens to them if the gov't takes over healthcare?

Some number of them would be employed by the government, although since Medicare is vastly more efficient than private health care (the numbers are something like 96% vs. 80%) not as many would be needed. As for the rest, the California Nurse's Association research arm concluded back in January (http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/january/cna-says-universal-health-care-would-create-2-6-million-new-jobs.html) that "Medicare for all" would result in $317 billion in new business in the economy and $100 billion in new wages. With such a stimulus there would be a lot more jobs in the economy.

While we're all on the subject, it's worth noting that a "medicare for all" type plan is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is when the gov owns the hospitals and employs the docs and nurses as well as providing insurance - for example, the US military medical system or the British National Health Service.

Some number of them would be employed by the government, although since Medicare is vastly more efficient than private health care (the numbers are something like 96% vs. 80%) not as many would be needed. As for the rest, the California Nurse's Association research arm concluded back in January (http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/january/cna-says-universal-health-care-would-create-2-6-million-new-jobs.html) that "Medicare for all" would result in $317 billion in new business in the economy and $100 billion in new wages. With such a stimulus there would be a lot more jobs in the economy.

While we're all on the subject, it's worth noting that a "medicare for all" type plan is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is when the gov owns the hospitals and employs the docs and nurses as well as providing insurance - for example, the US military medical system or the British National Health Service.

Did the California Nurses Association also indicate how much they would be willing to drop their wages if that system went into effect? I seriously doubt it.

If MediCare is so good, then why do I keep reading articles that say more and more doctors are refusing MediCare patients? How many patients are denied necessary treatments under MediCare, and how do those denials rate against private insurance denials?
I know that under my current situation, if I need a hip or knee replacement to keep doing my walking job, I'll get it. If we had a system like Canada's, since I'm 55, would I be denied and have that wonderful medical system ration my health care? Reading of the cases of health care rationing in countries like Canada makes me wonder that if I was Canadian, at some point I would be told that since I am older, the next time my pacemaker battery wore down I'd be out of luck.

It should also be noted that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have some form of national medical care for its citizens. Health care costs for workers in Detroit were listed as one of the issues facing the cost of manufacturing autos in the US. Competitive companies in either European nations or Asian nations do not bear this cost directly... although the taxes to profits for those companies is higher, to ultimately pay for some form of national health care.

My dissenting opinion is that universal health insurance is the problem, not the solution.

It has deteriorated the doctor/patient relationship, and increased the prescription drug usage to a problematic level.

Three quarters of a million people are employed by the health insurance industry. What happens to them if the gov't takes over healthcare?

Obama's plan, unfortunately does NOT call for a government takeover. People will keep their current healthcare, although perhaps they'll have an option of buying into a government insurance policy.

If there was a government takeover (which there definitely will NOT be), I think a lot of health insurance workers would get jobs with the new plan, if they wanted to. Again, this is not what is going to happen. There is no "government takeover." That was a smokescreen put out by the Republicans as part of their "just say no" plan for governance.

It should also be noted that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have some form of national medical care for its citizens. Health care costs for workers in Detroit were listed as one of the issues facing the cost of manufacturing autos in the US. Competitive companies in either European nations or Asian nations do not bear this cost directly... although the taxes to profits for those companies is higher, to ultimately pay for some form of national health care.

The automakers chose to provide those benefits when other companies weren't. In hindsight it was an unsustainable model. To hold it up as a government or healthcare problem is misleading. This was a company management problem, nothing more.

That hasn't stopped it from being used by special interest groups to stir public opinion though.

It should also be noted that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have some form of national medical care for its citizens. Health care costs for workers in Detroit were listed as one of the issues facing the cost of manufacturing autos in the US. Competitive companies in either European nations or Asian nations do not bear this cost directly... although the taxes to profits for those companies is higher, to ultimately pay for some form of national health care.

However, this is not what Obama is proposing. Briefly, his plan will keep employer provided health insurance for those who have it. The uninsured will have the option (NOT required) to buy a health policy that's administered by the federal government. (This is the same plan that currently covers many government workers, including Congressmen and the President himself.) Those low income people who can't afford the coverage will be subsidized in some way.

This is by no means a radical plan. It keeps the current system intact. At some point, insured people may be given the option of buying into the government plan. At that time, private carriers will have to compete with the government for consumer dollars.

The automakers chose to provide those benefits when other companies weren't. In hindsight it was an unsustainable model. To hold it up as a government or healthcare problem is misleading. This was a company management problem, nothing more.

That hasn't stopped it from being used by special interest groups to stir public opinion though.

Wrong. The health insurance of auto workers (union and non-union) is the same type as you, I and other employees get, and at about the same cost. Last time I checked, most workers had Blue Cross or a PPO.

UAW retirees belong to a VEBA, or co-operative pre-paid plan. The auto companies were supposed to make large contributions to the VEBA fund, but have begged off on it due to their supposed inability to pay at this time.

I guess I haven't been paying attention close enough. I know "legacy healthcare cost" is as recurring term in most every article. Perhaps it's writers getting pensions and healthcare mixed up.

My dissenting opinion is that universal health insurance is the problem, not the solution.

It has deteriorated the doctor/patient relationship, and increased the prescription drug usage to a problematic level.

We don't have universal health care... we have third party payer system based on health insurance as a benefit of employment. If you are unemployed, or your employer chooses not to offer health care, you are pretty much SOL and have to fund your health care insurance out of pocket. Try to get admission into a hospital without health insurance, and you will find it rather difficult for anything but life threatening emergencies.

I believe Hawaii is one of the few states that has a universal health care system.

I fully agree that our "system" has deteriorated the doctor patient relationship.

I guess that by now I'm not the only one who knows who the talk radio listeners are. And to Groton there is a big difference between a small buisness grossing $250,000 and what the small buisness owner actually makes. Most of my friends that have small buisnesses take home is much lower than $250,000.

The US purposely inflates medical costs by reducing the supply of medical personal, while giving government workers essentially unlimited benefits at no cost. Healthly lifestyles will not change the equation as the amount spent in the US system has nothing to do with patient needs and outcomes.

On a vacation in Greece I was able to get a deep root scaling for $150, which my dentist quoted as $320 in NYC. In Greece the dentist did the procedure without anesthetic(and was not painful), in NYC a trained hygenist was going to do it with anesthetic. In other words the US dentist was going to charge more, make the procedure more risky by using anesthetic, and supply a less qualified person to do the procedure.

The Greek dentist had Boston U degrees ect on his wall, in addition to some British and Greek stuff. That episode opened my eyes to how corrupt US medicine is. Healthy lifestyles will not correct an inherently corrupt system.

I know of no policy to "reduce the supply of medical personal." To the best of my knowledge, any qualified person can go to college and be trained in what ever level of medicine they want... this is evidenced by the Doctor in Greece that had that Boston U degree.

We don't have universal health care... we have third party payer system based on health insurance as a benefit of employment. If you are unemployed, or your employer chooses not to offer health care, you are pretty much SOL and have to fund your health care insurance out of pocket. Try to get admission into a hospital without health insurance, and you will find it rather difficult for anything but life threatening emergencies.


Didn't say we did. You even quoted me.

Universal health insurance is my term for what's being proposed, a system where the vast majority of the people have some sort of health insurance plan.

I could write a book on the problems I see with it. It's lose lose for just about everyone. Hell, I could write a book just about how it has increased the prescription rate over the last 20 years.

Any plan that gets passed will be more a plan about controlling the flow of money than providing healthcare.

Our hospital claims they're paying 3k more a year (per employee) than other hospitals for our coverage....you know what the means? Yeah my cost are about to go up 3000 a year.

Who's going to pay for it AndrewP???? While we're at it, I'm willing to bet less than half the population in this country has access to municipal sewer and water. The entitlement attitude is going to be the end of this country.

Wait, I see your from Canada, we see the effects of your medical system down here all the time, people who have to wait for treatment up there head south. Those who can afford it that is.

And yet...we are generally healthier, live longer, and pay much less per capita for our health care as large insurers don't suck up huge $$$ resources, and add add multiple levels of bureaucracy.

A single payer system is more efficient.

In Alberta my health care premiums are now $0.00 per month...this stems from living in a province that has generated huge surpluses and rather than pay out an annual cheque they decided to cover all health care premiums. Despite that my monthly health care premium was under 100.00 a month... for a family.

It isn't perfect by any means and I am having to wait 6 weeks for an MRI... because I am not dying. If my situation was critical I would not have to wait and thee is a good chance my appointment could get bumped up.

If some essential services and procedures are not available in Canada our health care system will pay for treatments that are done in the U.S.

Didn't say we did. You even quoted me.

Universal health insurance is my term for what's being proposed, a system where the vast majority of the people have some sort of health insurance plan.

I could write a book on the problems I see with it. It's lose lose for just about everyone. Hell, I could write a book just about how it has increased the prescription rate over the last 20 years.

Any plan that gets passed will be more a plan about controlling the flow of money than providing healthcare.

I quoted you as saying "universal health care is the problem." Since we do not have universal health care now, it could hardly be "the problem."

Granted, we are trying to get to universal health care, but we are no where near there right now.

As I said, we have a third party payer system... trying to maintain third party payer system is the root cause of what ails us right now. For any payments now made to a doctor or hospital, there is an insurance company in between, that insurance company determines what the payment can be, and what costs are covered, and what procedures are permitted; that insurance company extracts a profit, above and beyond what goes for medical care. That insurance company also makes judgments on what procedures you can have, beyond what your doctor determines you may need.

I don't know the specifics of any of the proposed "universal health care" proposals on the table right now... but I do know that what we have now has serious flaws, and the US is the only industrialized country in the world that has such a costly mess.

Here is one such example:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/

Go ahead and write your book... be sure to try to explain why health care costs in the US are so high now.

And yet...we are generally healthier, live longer, and pay much less per capita for our health care as large insurers don't suck up huge $$$ resources, and add add multiple levels of bureaucracy.

A single payer system is more efficient.

In Alberta my health care premiums are now $0.00 per month...this stems from living in a province that has generated huge surpluses and rather than pay out an annual cheque they decided to cover all health care premiums. Despite that my monthly health care premium was under 100.00 a month... for a family.

It isn't perfect by any means and I am having to wait 6 weeks for an MRI... because I am not dying. If my situation was critical I would not have to wait and thee is a good chance my appointment could get bumped up.

If some essential services and procedures are not available in Canada our health care system will pay for treatments that are done in the U.S.

LOL... I have health care coverage through my employer here in the US. Just to get an appointment for a physical can take up to 6 weeks. I am not even "eligible" for a physical this year, according to the insurer.

My out of pocket is $30 per visit, for a co-pay, plus the costs to my employer. I have a maximum out of pocket of $2000 a year or 20% if I use non-network Doctors.

Last year, foot surgery cost me $1200 dollars, out of pocket.

To maintain that coverage after I am laid off will cost me $786 dollars a month.

I guess that by now I'm not the only one who knows who the talk radio listeners are. And to Groton there is a big difference between a small buisness grossing $250,000 and what the small buisness owner actually makes. Most of my friends that have small buisnesses take home is much lower than $250,000.

If your friends gross $250,000 then they won't be affected by the new tax increases Obama is talking about. Way to miss the whole point, reread my statement, remove preconceptions, and if capable you'll understand what I am talking about.

[/COLOR]

Uh, no. The World Health Organization ranked health care systems back in 2000. The US came in at 37th, just ahead of Slovenia and Cuba. For life expectancy, the US ranked 28th in 2006, just ahead of Chile and Costa Rica.

The US possesses the world's most expensive health care, with a fragile system that fails utterly for ~43 million Americans by leaving them uninsured, fails for millions more by leaving them underinsured, and hamstrings businesses and employees by tying coverage to employment. All this and our health outcomes suck.

Our current system is a sickness care system, not health care. There's a lot more profit in treating sick patients than in treating healthy patients, and the largest political contributors want to keep things that way.

Enjoy that $8 to $13 per week, I'm sure it will make a huge difference. Most of those making over $250,000 employ others in their small businesses, they'll be paying for that extra tax by reducing their payroll by a couple employees, there's some change you can believe in.

Would you clarify this? Are you talking about sole proprietorships, LLC's or corporations? When you say small buisness do you mean under 500 employees which is what dept. of commerce uses or smaller like 100 or 10? What if they can't spare the help, need every hand? Haven't most employers already cut expendable workers?
I can read fine and I have excellent comprehension. I also don't let ideology get in the way of the truth. The way I see it as a self-employed craftsman with pre-existing conditions I welcome the day we join the rest of the western world and give everyone a basic health plan.

Would you clarify this? Are you talking about sole proprietorships, LLC's or corporations? When you say small buisness do you mean under 500 employees which is what dept. of commerce uses or smaller like 100 or 10? What if they can't spare the help, need every hand? Haven't most employers already cut expendable workers?
I can read fine and I have excellent comprehension. I also don't let ideology get in the way of the truth. The way I see it as a self-employed craftsman with pre-existing conditions I welcome the day we join the rest of the western world and give everyone a basic health plan.


I made a simple statement billew, you are the one making it complicated and starting with the name calling and insinuation. Many small businesses set up as s-corporations which essentially means the owner(s) pay taxes through personal returns. They could have 1 employee, they could have 500+ employees. All the questions you ask are moot. The bottom line is the tax increase Obama wants will impact these small business owners and others set up as partnerships, dba's whatever other form is out there. It takes money out of the owner's pockets that has to come from somewhere. Many will not hire that new employee or employees, or replace the one that left to compensate for having to send more to the government.

Once again, I'll quote you here "and give everyone a basic health plan.", who is going to pay for it?

Once again, I'll quote you here "and give everyone a basic health plan.", who is going to pay for it?

Excellent point. I will argue that needed health care is a human right, and should be available to all those who have a job, however low-paying it may be just like food, water, and basic shelter. My point all along is that the current $8000/yr is plain ridiculous and unsustainable. So the question is only partially who'll pay for it. More importantly, in my view, is how do we reduce it to something more reasonable. "Who'll pay for it" relates to redistributing the ridiculous pie. "How do we make it cheaper" relates to shrinking the pie to a overall more manageable load. As to how to do that, well, there are a myriad of issues, and probably there is no "silver bullet."

Before this thread is completely gone to P&R land, I will simply argue that reduction of the insane costs IMO are a good argument for spending money on improved cycling infrastructure. Come to think of it, what's the per capita amount spent on health care in Davis CA or Boulder CO, versus that of a comparable sized less-bike-friendly city with similar demographics? IIRC around 1/8th of the trips in Davis are taken by bike, compared to ~1% elsewhere.

Well, here in Canada at least, income tax pays for it.
Just glad to know I can get all smashed on the road and not wake up tens or hundreds of grands in in debt.

Not perfect by any means but it's served us pretty well here, I think, in that the poor can get the same level of treatment as the rich provided you just sow up at the hospital.

Ha, I saw it too, hold onto your wallet, it's about to be picked clean.......

That already happened. Didn't you notice? [GrotonPaul reaches for wallet, nothing there.]

Japan has universal health coverage, and the country now requires everyone over 40 to get weighed, measured, and, if too heavy, signed up for a weight-reducing diet and exercise plan. Would Americans tolerate this level of nannystatism?

We also have to be careful interpreting longevity statistics, which are influenced more by genetics and lifestyle than by the medical profession. In everyday life, the average European does far more walking than his/her American counterpart, and this reduces the incidence of heart disease, which is still the #1 killer. Standards for food purity and additives are stricter in Europe than in the U.S., and this arguably affects the incidence of cancer, the #2 killer.

It should also be noted that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have some form of national medical care for its citizens. Health care costs for workers in Detroit were listed as one of the issues facing the cost of manufacturing autos in the US. Competitive companies in either European nations or Asian nations do not bear this cost directly... although the taxes to profits for those companies is higher, to ultimately pay for some form of national health care.

Most foreign cars sold in this country are actually made in this country and the workers all have healthcare paid for by the company. Companies like Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Mercedes, BMW all have factories in this country so that healthcare argument doesn't hold much water except for GM and Ford and the UAW.

Most foreign cars sold in this country are actually made in this country and the workers all have healthcare paid for by the company. Companies like Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Mercedes, BMW all have factories in this country so that healthcare argument doesn't hold much water except for GM and Ford and the UAW.

We still get 'em by the boat load on the west coast. There are huge parking lots in Long Beach that hold shipped in new cars.

I understand there are plants in various places in the south... and as you noted they are not members of the UAW.

Japan has universal health coverage, and the country now requires everyone over 40 to get weighed, measured, and, if too heavy, signed up for a weight-reducing diet and exercise plan. Would Americans tolerate this level of nannystatism?

We also have to be careful interpreting longevity statistics, which are influenced more by genetics and lifestyle than by the medical profession. In everyday life, the average European does far more walking than his/her American counterpart, and this reduces the incidence of heart disease, which is still the #1 killer. Standards for food purity and additives are stricter in Europe than in the U.S., and this arguably affects the incidence of cancer, the #2 killer.

With regard to lifestyle, this is precisely why we need to have complete streets. Sure, the nannystatism you describe in Japan is probably not a good thing. I would hope that people generally want to not get sick, and if the opportunities are readily available, most people will take advantage of them. (Having to walk along high-speed roads with no sidewalks doesn't count.) I've always been intrigued by the notion of using taxation on undesirable activities (Pigou taxes) to reduce such activities, and the taxes can be offset with reduced income taxes.

In terms of genetics, I believe there are studies that show (ignoring possible allegations of racism) that on a large scale, there is no genetic effect that would account for the longer lifespan of the average Japanese person. The studies looked at Japanese immigrants to the USA and their lifespans, compared to the people who are already here. Pretty much the immigrants adopted the local lifestyle, and ended up with shorter lifespans equal to that of the people already here.

Didn't say we did. You even quoted me.

Universal health insurance is my term for what's being proposed, a system where the vast majority of the people have some sort of health insurance plan.

I could write a book on the problems I see with it. It's lose lose for just about everyone. Hell, I could write a book just about how it has increased the prescription rate over the last 20 years.

Any plan that gets passed will be more a plan about controlling the flow of money than providing healthcare.

You should make one of your claims here so that it can be disputed. Your entirely unwritten book does nothing to further the discussion.

I know of no policy to "reduce the supply of medical personal." To the best of my knowledge, any qualified person can go to college and be trained in what ever level of medicine they want... this is evidenced by the Doctor in Greece that had that Boston U degree.

The ability of foreign educated doctors to practice in the US is severely limited by medical boards and Immigration. Admission to medical school is way more restrictive than it needs to be.

An amusing example of medical organizations restricting medical services can be seen in Teeth Whitening.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggCYllG0qg_DQ_9W-bVehWVPUEjgD96IJ8A00

At best teeth whitening professionals only need how to sterilize equipment, and should be no more dangerous than getting a hair cut or a pedicure. Amazingly Dentists claim that teeth whitening cannot be done unless a dentist is present. Dentists also claim that teeth cannot be cleaned unless a dentist is present, that is unless the person whose teeth are being cleaned also does the cleaning irrespective of the competence of that person. Please explain why I can brush my teeth but a dental hygenist can't unless a dentist is there.