We all know Bush will be known for the worst foreign policy blunder in our nation's history and dropping the ball on what was an historic opportunity for America post 9/11. We also know that Bush will be remembered for his reckless tax cuts that have led to the worst 8 years fiscally for the US in our nation's history by stacking over $3 trillion on top of our national debt, nearly doubling the total in 8 years that took over 200 years to build up.

However, the US Census Bureau reported today that for the second consectutive year, there are a RECORD number of people without health insurance.

"The number of people without health insurance coverage increased from 44.8 million in 2005 to 47 million in 2006," David S. Johnson, chief of the bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, said during a teleconference Tuesday.

The percentage of Americans without health insurance rose to 15.8 percent in 2006 from 15.3 percent in 2005, Johnson added. "This is the second consecutive year of increase," he said.

The problems of the uninsured are particularly acute among children. The percent and the number of children under 18 without health insurance increased to 11.7 percent from 10.9 percent from 2005 to 2006, and to 8.7 million from 8 million, respectively.

Obviously, Iraq will be a key part of the 2008 elections, but I think the healthcare debate is going to heat up and become more dear to more Americans as more Americans find themselves and their children uninsured.

So far, I have not seen any solutions from any of the GOP contenders other than to not get sick.

Your post doesnt back up what you said, you said a record number of people are without health care, when the article says a record number of people are with out health insurance. Its not the same thing, lots of people get health care from various free providers, and everyone can use the emergency room. And how many of those without health insurance are illegal's. If you go to mexico, just try and use an emergency room, if your not a mexican citizen and don't have health insurance.

Besides, if your numbers are correct, that means a record number of Americans have health insurance.





On the other hand, a record number of people have health care on his watch.

Then let them buy some health insurance.

Now, if you want the government to provide it, you need to remember that the government doesn't have money. It takes it from the people. That means if someone needs the government to provide the health insurance, it has to be paid for by me. I don't want to pay for your health insurance.

Can you see the problem?

Hmmm .... Bush is in bed with the health insurance providers and pharmaceuticals, and a record number of people are without health insurance, costs are skyrocketing, and the new Medicare laws are a mess, leaving more and more elderly out of the loop.

See a coincidence here, kids?

I still say the best answer is not for the government to be the insurance/health care provider, but for government to do SOMETHING with the insurance industry to even the playing field for the public.

Brianl, what is it you think Bush be doing relative to health care?

What is it the government should be doing with the insurance industry?

Deane, the US spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet we don't rank anywhere near the top in regards to the quality of healthcare or the number of people covered. This tells me that some changes can be made without raising taxes that would cover more people. Is this concept that tough to understand? Do you not think those 47 million people that are uninsured will not be looking for a candidate to help solve this problem? Currently the only solution from the right is to not get sick or buy your own. Obviously, I'm sure most people would buy it if they could afford it.

And Deane, when someone does business with my company, they pay for my health insurance. If I'm uninsured and go to the emergency room, I obviously don't have the money to pay for insurance, so I certainly can't afford to pay cash, and then that debt gets written off by the hospital and passed along to you in the form of higher premiums, lowered coverage, and higher hospital costs. One way or another, YOU PAY.

"Then let them buy some health insurance."

Ok, since I'm living that mess right now, I've got some information and perspective to add:

There are some options when buying health insurance. If one is buying, and is otherwise healthy, then such a purchase is possible. However, the nature of the coverage, robustness and overall cost is not favorable, compared to employer based coverage, in a high percentage of cases.

If one happens to have some problem, maybe it's ongoing, maybe the company folded, etc... Obtaining a health insurance policy is more or less impossible. If one is obtained, the typical wait for benefits is 24 months.

Policy premiums are high, or near impossible to get if one is anything but very healthy.


Despite there being a lot of plans being offered, inability to deal with ones own doctors, structure risk, and insure the right kind of coverage remains difficult for anything other than really very expensive plans.

If one has insurance, and it's not employer based, actually getting the company to pay out can be a full time job.

eg: Let's say there is some surgery that happens.

About 20 different entities could be involved with the billing of the procedure.

Say there is a problem with coverage. (And their always is, unless one goes with the one stop shopping deals, like Kaiser.)

These interactions fall on the person insured. If a complex procedure has happened, this can mean dealing with a few insurance reps, and several billing departments, faxing, phoning, and generally dealing.

When this happened to me, on more than one occasion, I ended up easily consuming 20 hours a week managing all of that stuff.

And that's with a fricking ton of people in the process that really don't add a whole lot of value.

There is lots more, but the crux of this problem is:

-obtaining coverage is expensive

-managing it is time consuming

-incentive is on the fewest dollars, thus the paitent is forced to also be their own advocate a majority of the time.

Those things are difficult for solid people to manage. For a lot of people, these barriers are too high. IMHO, that's by design.

Two events in my life have convinced me we need single pay, or some very tightly managed pay system. The first event was an auto accident, where I had a three insurance carriers. Took an attorney to get anybody to do anything.

Very costly for all involved. Costs were 3-400 percent above and beyond the actual medical care necessary, and that includes some preventative stuff. Omit that, and it's a solid 500 percent.

This is wasteful and hurting us.

The other event, I'm struggling with right now, happens to be a lapse. Employer decides to cut coverage at a bad time for me. Stuff happens, that's not the point.

An event that happened during this very short gap, resulted in billing, payment arrangements and a LOT OF COMMUNICATION with over 10 entities. Actually adding insurance has now added 3 more entities to communicate with and manage.

If anyone in the chain ends up with a problem, it all falls back down to my family and that takes time and dollars to resolve.

For the last 6 months, it's been a near full-time job just to get what is covered actually covered, and to manage what is not covered in a way that does not require loss of home, etc...

I really don't care about the little issues. Choice, kinds of coverage, etc...

The big reform is the elimination of a lot of layers of billing that is costing us a very large sum of money, time and is a serious barrier to actually getting anything done.

Single pay would eliminate that and the savings right across the board will be on the order of 1 in 4. Factor out insurance companies, whose profit comes from adding no value, and the savings above that would be another 10 percent or so.

This is plenty to fund and manage a better system where people, who get sick, can actually be paitents, not customers. The caregivers can focus on care, and management of said care, not of the other fluff people, currently draining the system huge.

It's just not possible for a lot of people to buy insurance. If they have it, it's also not possible for a lot of them to actually see any real benefit from it.

I don't think Bush should do anything about health care. He will fuck it up.

The next President needs to extend medicare / caid to everyone period. Let the private entities add value over that, for those who can afford it, or cease to exist.

You wanna fix healthcare start with putting and end to frivolous lawsuits which do nothing but drive up insurance costs. I have always supported the idea that if you sue someone and lose that you should be required to pay the other persons expenses 100% in addition to your own. US mal-practice insurance rates have got to be the highest in the world.

Vitology, I see no solutions in your post, just ranting. We can all see the problems, what most of us don't have is a clue to what the solution is. Guess what, pissing and moaning about Bush isn't a solution.

Missing:

A lot of good points. What we need is a complete overhaul of the system. Trouble is, this can't happen. Why? Because the various industries involved have paid off so many Congressmen there is no way to get a consensus, or even a start on one.

>>>The next President needs to extend medicare / caid to everyone period."

Both are pretty excellent in my opinion. Now, to extend them, it will cost much, much more. How much are you willing to pay in additional taxes. I'm not willing to pay any more.

While typing this, I had a call from the hospital reminding my I was due for an appointment in the morning as a follow-up on some tests, which all turned out normal. It is such an unnecessary visit that I'm only seeing a nurse practitioner. I have to come early so they can copy my insurance cards and go over a list of my medications, written of course. I only take a couple, so it's not a big deal. Bottom line, this whole thing is to cover their butts legally. There is no health reason for me to be going. And, it will cost me nothing but time, it's 100% covered by Medicare.

More on that???

http://health.msn.com/healthnews/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100168613&GT1=10 316

DJ said>>>
Guess what, pissing and moaning about Bush isn't a solution.

This is true but he is LEADER of the RICHEST nation on the planet. Doesn't that hold him accountable for something??? He goes above the heads of Congress when it comes to terrorism and makes laws to help our nation. How about stepping up to the plate and just making it easier for everyone to get health insurance???

I wonder how many of those with out health insurance are here illegally. And if we took the money we're currently paying for illegals at er rooms etc, how far it would go towards providing health insurance to citizens that dont have health insurance?

When people don't have health insurance, they put off getting medical attention until they get really sick. Then they go to the Emergency Room, where it costs 50X more than had they been treated before their condition became serious. Of course, many people who can't afford health insurance will never be able to pay a huge emergency room bill. So, they will wind up declaring bankruptcy, the hospital will write off the cost and pass it on to...guess who? All of the rest of us.

The real problem with health care is the cost, obviously. Why are costs continuing to escalate out of control? Don't tell me it's all due to lawsuits (I've heard of studies indicating that such lawsuits are only a small portion of increasing costs - don't ask me for a source though). A big part of it has to be the pharmaceutical companies and their aggressive marketing of new drugs. They now spend extraordinary amounts on marketing.

Perhaps the government should step in somehow to control costs. The fundamental issue here is: at what point does government intrusion of health care costs step over the line of limiting our freedom? Selling insulin that diabetics require to live, for example, shouldn't be in the same class as selling, say, iPods. Should it? Isn't selling something that affects people's life and death or their suffering in a different category, one of those exceptions we make like the exception we make about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

Yes, I know, we also don't want to remove the incentive to innovate medical technology by taking out the potential for profit. Then again, we have seen a lot of medical innovation in past generations without the soaring health care costs we have now. (And in the past we had a lot more government investment in medical research that is now largely funded by private companies.)

But there's got to be a way to limit costs of health care in an acceptable way. Yes, I know people will scream (the people today making billions in this industry), but that's just going to be inevitable.

Andrew

Nwokie said>>>
I wonder how many of those with out health insurance are here illegally.

You should get right on that. I bet if you go to the RNC website it's there. Or maybe Hannity's website? Or Plush Bimbo's??? Maybe FAUXNews has it????

Andrew, you have a good handle on the issue.

Healthcare is rising about 15% per year. Comparing that to wage increases and overall inflation which is significantly less than that, it's easy to see the problem.

Why is it rising. Certainly the drug companies shoulder a lot of the blame. I personally believe it's a corrupt industry, rampant with waste and pay-offs.

But, there is also a lot of new technology. If you've been in for tests recently, you know there are all kinds of new machines that test all kinds of things that we never had before.

Then there is the paperwork to cover the legal issues. My son has had a lot of hospitalization and I have had a lot of time to observe. The nurses spend nearly half their time on paper work. Some is necessary, some is CYA.

What we need is some learned people studying the issue and coming up with some solutions. Trouble is, there are few learned people around without an axe to grind. Look at how corrupt the 9/11 Commission was.

The other thing we need is for the media to publish all of the contributions to our politicians from any health care oriented agency. This is not going to get fixed until we have some objective, honest approach to the problem. People aren't demanding this yet. All they are demanding is that the government give them something.

Both are pretty excellent in my opinion. Now, to extend them, it will cost much, much more. How much are you willing to pay in additional taxes. I'm not willing to pay any more.


Deane, I'll gladly pay the taxes. Andrew has some good motivators. My recent life experiences are also good motivators.

Honestly, that additional tax burden is a no brainer compared to the costs, time and effort I've been dealing with. Time is money. That one fact alone would generate a very rapid ROI for the tax.

Just being a paitent is worth it.

Getting past that, distributing this cost only makes sense. It will be the least burden option, for all of us, choices can still be made possible for those needing more, and the point about regulation is great.

Also, should the dollars for R&D not be there, with a well regulated system, I'll gladly contribute toward that research as well.

The current mess is just that bad.

OK, wave the old magic wand, and youi have money to pay for 100% coverage for every person living in the US.


Where are the medical providers and equipment going to come from? Doctors all work about as many hours as they can, same with nurses.

Deane, I'm not pissing and moaning, I'm simply pointing out that the health care situation here in America is quickly coming to a head, and it will affect elections. Several Dems have plans and ideas, and so far all I've seen from the GOP is the pushing of health savings plans, which require people to save money they don't have to begin with. For me personally, I have excellent coverage through my employer. I don't pay a dime other than copays, and I hardly ever go! My wife is fully covered with her employer as well, and pays nothing too, so we enjoy some of the best coverage that's available to regular people with no cost. However, I realize that not everyone is as fortunate as us, and if more and more people are uninsured and using the hospital's services but not paying, IT WILL AFFECT ME EVENTUALLY as my premiums and copays go up or insurance is taken away.

I have long objected to our employer paid system. The reason I object is that it means those with good jobs have health care, those who don't have good jobs don't. Not good.

Mitt Romney started on a system in Massachusetts, but it still depends on employer paid for a lot of the people. Others are required by law to buy their own, and if they can't afford it, the government helps pay the premiums. Seems sort of like half an abortion to me, but it's a start with everyone covered by commercial insurance.

I'd like to see someone look into some sort of universal private policy, not unlike the Medicare supplement. One policy available for all. I wonder how it would add up if we took all of the money paid by employers, all of the money paid by the self employed, all of the money paid for health care by welfare and see how far it would go toward funding a universal system. Not socialized medicine, simply everyone covered by a commercial policy.

I think we stand the greatest chance of getting something through if is avoids socialized medicine, allows the current insurance companies to write the policies and makes sure every single person is covered.

There are many other issues. Do we want the insurance company deciding what treatment you can have as they do now, usually by a non-medical person? Do we want everything the doctor wants covered? I can tell you some real rip-off stories about that appoarch? How about deductibles. I'll guarantee you if it's free you'll see abuses like never before. If groceries were free, you'd eat better and so would your dog.

All of these things are fixable, we just need the right kind of non-agenda driven people starting on it.

>>>"Several Dems have plans and ideas,"

I've not seen those, do you happen to have a link? Not trying to trap you, I'm just curious as to what is being proposed. You and I can agree this is a serious issue.


>>>"all I've seen from the GOP is the pushing of health savings plans"

I believe these are a terrible idea. Well intentioned, but unworkable. The well off gain some ground sometimes, the poor gain nothing.

>>>"Deane, I'm not pissing and moaning,"

It's just that I think Bush should be left out of discussion at this point. His reign is about over. Let's get on to the future and solutions to these issues. I don't think we would have liked Bush's solutions anyway, so best he did nothing.

You can read all about Obama's plan right here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Those with good jobs also probably have nicer houses, and take better vacations.

Since when did health care become a right, IE the government should provide it?

Nwokie said>>
OK, wave the old magic wand, and youi have money to pay for 100% coverage for every person living in the US.

We have money to spend in Iraq when we need it! Wave that magic wand!!!!

When people who deserve it, couldn't get it. That's when.

Thanks Vitalogy. I didn't take time to read it in minute detail, but in scanning some obvious parts, I see a lot of things I like. This is the kind of detail I like to see candidates present to show where their heads are.

Unfortunately, when the special interests would get through with Congress, it would never look like this. That's a big part of our problem.

One thing Obama needs to do is not appear to be heavily oriented towards minorities. That will turn a lot of voters off. It appears that the plan you linked me to doesn't do that, which is good for his cause.

I think Obama is certainly a rising star and the type person we need more of coming up through the ranks, even though he is a Democrat. After all, we're going to have Democrats forever, so let's have some smart ones. God only knows, we need some smarter people in DC.

Re: Election. For me, this is a major issue.

At any given time, there is a percentage of us getting hosed. It's always an issue. The big difference now is general awareness of it among not affected people.

I sold health insurance for a short time. The biggest issue, next to people not being able to afford it, was pre-existing conditions. If you were already sick, you were screwed. That's not right in a civilized society.

You didnt answer the question, wave the magic wand to get the money, then where you going to get the health care workers? Lower the rquirements to med school? start requlating what health care people can get, if you donn't let doctors do elective plastic surgery, that frees them up for more important work.

Who are you wanting to answer this? I got lost.

The providers and equipment are going to come from the magic wand they wave for Iraq. If I asked for $300 BILLION a day I can guarantee you that health care workers would come out of the wood work and I could buy a shit load of equipment.
There is NO shortage of money for re-building Iraq and taking care of their citizens but how about US??? What about taking care of America???

Deane writes:
But, there is also a lot of new technology. If you've been in for tests recently, you know there are all kinds of new machines that test all kinds of things that we never had before.

I think the Oregon Health Plan had it right, when they basically ZBB'd (Zero-Based Budgeted) health care procedures the plan would cover. A broken arm might be covered, but an expensive organ transplant that costs a million dollars wouldn't. And while these new technologies are wonderful, if they cost a thousand dollars a pop just for some test it's not practical on a wide scale.

Why not offer a basic health care program where BASIC health care is free or cheap? At least give people access to 1970s medical technology and medication that by now should long have its R&D investments paid back many times in profit. If you break your arm in a soccer game and you have no insurance, take an X-ray set the arm in a cast like they would have in 1975. Just because we have some nifty new machine now that costs 5X more doesn't mean we need to make that free under a basic health care plan.

I definitely think it's OK that you would get better health care if you can afford it. But we should at least make basic health care (and preventative health care) affordable to everyone, so people never have to put off a visit to the doctor so they wind up in the emergency room.

Andrew

currently most doctors work at least a 50 hour week. Most nurses and other health care providers do the same. Plus a lot of time, doctors and nurses are spent running extrqa tests to ensure their not sued.

Additionally the cost of medical equipment is increasing, an MRI is approx 2 million, which means if it has an expected 5 year life span, you have to make 50,000 per week to recover the cost, not to mention the 10,000 per month to maintain it.

So the cost of Iraq is going down?? The cost of a Humvee is getting cheaper?? The cost of bullets is getting cheaper?? The cost of fuel for the planes, helicopters and Humvees is getting cheaper???

Nwokie writes:
Additionally the cost of medical equipment is increasing, an MRI is approx 2 million, which means if it has an expected 5 year life span, you have to make 50,000 per week to recover the cost, not to mention the 10,000 per month to maintain it.

But WHY is the cost of an MRI machine increasing, presumably at a faster rate than inflation? Since this is not a brand new technology, shouldn't they be learning how to make these machines more cheaply by now?

Andrew

Their using all the parts for new machines in Iraq.... $300 BILLION a day!

Wow, $300B a day? The cost of Iraq must have REALLY gone up recently!!!

Andrew

okay...
NOT 300 BILLION a day but here is the running total as of just about a minute ago. DAMN! It keeps going up!!!!

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

Nwokie...
Instead of Iraq we could be spending our money on the children of America.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=207&id=319&tas k=view

"Since when did health care become a right, IE the government should provide it?"

Since when did having police and fire protection become a right the government must provide?

Look, in a civilized society, it makes sense to use economies of scale to allow as many as people as possible access to basic healthcare. The money is there, it just needs to be "redeployed".

Amen, brother(s).

"Since when did health care become a right, IE the government should provide it?"

Since you believe that healthcare is not a right, that would seem to indicate that you beleive that healthcare is a privlege to be granted only to those who are able to pay for it.

Do I understand your position correctly?

Whoops - wrong thread. Kind of.

"OK, wave the old magic wand, and youi have money to pay for 100% coverage for every person living in the US."


Like trixter was saying, Bush HAD the money, but spent it looking for wmds . . . I mean installing freedom . . . er, stopping al qaeda?? No, no, its that American-built Mother of all Presidential Palaces for the American ambassador? Yep, that's the ticket.

Funny how the EXTREMEIES run from a thread full of FACTS....