Americans Strongly Support Universal Health Care

[CShine 0]

The public's growing unease with the current health care system has built support for a new approach that would mean care for all Americans and changes in laws governing prescription drugs, a poll suggests.

A sizable majority, 70 percent, said it should be legal for Americans to buy prescription drugs outside the United States, according to the ABC News-Washington Post poll. One in eight respondents said they or someone in their home has done just that. Such purchases can save money but they violate the law.

The poll found that 53 percent of those who are insured say they are worried about losing their insurance because of loss of a job. The percentage of those who have health insurance and are satisfied with the cost, 64 percent, has dropped by 9 percentage points since 1997.

By almost a 2-1 margin in this poll, 62 percent to 32 percent, Americans said they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system.

Among the poll's other findings:

* Eight in 10 in the poll said it is more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans even if it means higher taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people uncovered.

* Almost two-thirds said they think the country is headed toward rationing of health care so that some medical procedures are no longer covered by insurance.

* Almost one-third of those who make less than $20,000 a year were uninsured, compared with 8 percent of those who make more than $50,000 a year.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines

[rexbo 104]

I saw a poll that shows Americans favor free Health Care, and a minimum wage of $50/ hour, and 12 weeks vacation time, and no more terrorism, and peace in our time. Now, we just have to find a politician to deliver it all to us and we will have finally, the Utopia that the Democrats have always promised us...

[Tiger Al 0]

I saw a poll that shows Americans favor free Health Care, and a minimum wage of $50/ hour, and 12 weeks vacation time, and no more terrorism, and peace in our time. Now, we just have to find a politician to deliver it all to us and we will have finally, the Utopia that the Democrats have always promised us...

Link please.

[tiger88 934]

Sure some libbies can come up with a poll that shows most americans want universal health care. However, put the facts up in front of the people and the poll numbers will change. For ex. "Would you be willing to enact gov. controlled universal healthcare and give up another massive chunk of your income to do so?".

I saw that little worm reich from slimy willy clintons admin. on face the nation(or a show like it) one day when they were trying to garner support for billary's healthcare plan. After trying to dodge the question numerous times he finally admitted that the start up cost alone of this fiasco would lead to a minimum of a 25% increase in everyones taxes. That would just be for starters and 25% would be a minimum.

Nationalized healthcare in this country would be a huge mistake. Our gov. officials are too incompetent and greedy as it is without being entrusted with this kind of responsibility and $$$ flow.

[rexbo 104]

Isn't that funny, CShine starts a topic bashing the US Government's ability to contract with Haliburton for the simple task of shipping gasoline, but yet, he then turns around and posts a topic endorsing the US Government taking over the healthcare system for 350 MILLION people. Doesn't he see the disconnect?

[Ranger12 46]

Look guys, I want all people to have good healthcare and not have to pay an arm and a leg for it. The problem with government ran healthcare is that the level of healthcare decreases. That does not necessarily mean the doctors and nurses are going to become worse, but the services that you may need from those doctors may not be so readily available. Go over to merry old England who has a socialist healthcare system. That back surgery you need, well, you may get in a year's time if you are lucky. Got some type of problem you need to got to the doctor with soon. Good luck there. I am not against fully government sposored healthecare, but I just don't think it will ever be the way the one's wanting it envision it to be. I can have that surgery I need scheduled in a couple of weeks, but somebody with no insurance is out of luck. With universal health insurance, I can have that same surgery in a year if I am lucky, and the person that has no insurance can have it too, but will have to wait just like me (as long is it is not life threatening). Where is the obvious positive thing about that? Everybody loses and gains no matter what. Either way you go, it is a Catch 22. Just think about all the people in this country that probably need heart surgery. Heart surgeons already put in some killer days already, but now multiply that "x" number of times if everybody that needs it gets it and then you are looking at a major problem. Don't get me wrong and think I am saying that everybody does not have a right to have their medical problems taken care of, but the medical services provided will change drastically then I think most Americans would be comfortable with.

[DKW 86 7,441]

"Universal healthcare is the dumbest idea in America today." DKW 86

Yes, I would love to give healthcare to everyone. Any hospital that accepts Federal money must take you in anyway. That is the law!!!!

As a veteran, I see how the Feds run the VA Hospitals, they are scandalously bad! And that is what we want for everyone? Puhlease!

The Federal govt is littered with idiots and dolts that could not find their rear ends with both hands, a road map, all day, and a guide. I have few Profs that really are ashamed to get too near the business world. They know the old axiom: "Those that can, do. Those that cant, teach." I will give you another corollary to that gem of wisdom.

"Those that can, do. Those that cant, teach. Those that cant even teach go into Civil Service."

The costs for healthcare will roughly double to triple within 4 years with govt intervention, bet the house and your salvation on it. The federal govt never saved anyone a dime in its history and wont start now.

You will never ever hear a liberal wanting to eliminate any program ever, no matter how stupid. We would still be subsidizing horses and buggy whips if the idiots in the New Democratic Party were around 100 years ago.

We can never 'Progress' to a better way to do something with the Democrats. They only know that any change is bad. They simplemindedly want to keep throwing money at problems without looking at if we are really solving any problems. Outcomes do not matter to any Democrat, unless the outcome is who gets the cash, not does it benefit a soul. Democrats just want "Mo money, mo money, mo money...." for themselves and their friends.

The definition of Insane must include this: "Someone that does something over and over again expecting different results."

You keep over eating-you get fat.

You keep taking drugs-you ruin your health.

You keep drinking-you become an alcoholic.

You keep breaking the law-you will end up in prison.

In a Democratic world, you just keep throwing money away-get no results-so you throw even more money away-get no results- throw even more money away-etc.

But you never change anything, never look to root causes, never challenge anything, just throw money.....forever.....at your political bedfellows. Get stinking rich. Dodge paying taxes like Gephardt. And complain when everyone but you figures out that you 'aint too bright.'

And so it goes...

[Tiger Al 0]

It's interesting how no one seems to have read CShine's link because there seems to be an assumption that it MUST have been about the next Democratic plan for health care. It wasn't. The problem with the plan President Clinton put forth was that it was very complicated. It was too complicated. In fact, it was so complicated that not very many people clearly and completely understood how it would work. It failed to get support and died, as it should've if it was that complicated.

David, your post contained many truisms but I'm not sure they were really relevant to the proposals that many people today are suggesting. First, you are correct that in an EMERGENCY hospitals are required to give life saving and sustaining treatment regardless of the patients ability to pay. They'll still get a bill. And try to get treatment for your latest attack of multiple sclerosis or cancer treatments. Hospitals are only REQUIRED to give EMERGENCY treatment to indigents.

As for the VA, you are again correct. They suck. I was unfortunate enough to have to train some techs in the VA in Tuskegee and worked on a mobile CT scanner that went to the VA in Montgomery. At its very best, VA healthcare is mediocre and I'm trying to be kind. Not across the board. I've met some very fine folks who work in some. (Anyone here who has worked for or been a patient of one who was thouroughly pleased with your experience, please, offer an opposing viewpoint in the spirit of fairness) Military healthcare is better but not by far in many cases. (TigerAl's hint for the day: Always be very leary of anyone who, by law, cannot be sued!) But, no one's ever suggested, not even the Clinton plan, that healthcare would be taken over by the government to be run like the VA.

The various plans have to do with a government payor system of insurance. My company would not be run by the government and I wouldn't become a government employee. It would be handled the same way it always has with the exception of who provides the insurance. Who pays for it, how much it'll cost and who gets it have been the details to be worked out. From what I understand about the Canadian healthcare system, it is run much in the same way that our military healthcare system is. Everyone is covered but there is no profit component for healthcare providers. One transplanted Canadian doctor I talked to back in 1992 or 1993, whenever the Clinton plan was being introduced, said that doctors were leaving Canada in droves because they could make almost infinitely more money in the US. THAT is the reason you have to wait so long for some treatment in Canada.

But, please don't think that Blue Cross Blue Shield or other third party payors are the model of efficiency, either. They're pretty good, but they often drop the ball, IMO. Example: MRI has been around for about 20 years. As little as five years ago BCBS wouldn't pay for an MRI of the head for headaches. MR was and is the gold standard test to evaluate the brain. It costs about three times as much ($1280 where I work) as a CT scan. So, patients would have to have a CT scan and only then would BCBS pay for an MRI. Before a patient has cervical spine surgery, the doctor would need to see what level was affected. In the old days, we did myelograms. Then came CT. Then came MRI, which again, is the gold standard. BCBS wouldn't pay for an MR straight out. Instead, the patient had to have a myelogram followed by a CT. Only then would they pay for the MR. Tons of money was wasted doing junk studies that were cheaper in the short run because some greedy insurance fat-ass was worried more about having to cut checks than providing the quality healthcare he promised to his customer.

I think we need to provide health insurance to as many people in this country as we can, not only because it's the right thing to do but, because society eventually pays for it in one way or another anyway. This falls into the category of 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'

[Ranger12 46]

It's interesting how no one seems to have read CShine's link because there seems to be an assumption that it MUST have been about the next Democratic plan for health care. It wasn't. The problem with the plan President Clinton put forth was that it was very complicated. It was too complicated. In fact, it was so complicated that not very many people clearly and completely understood how it would work. It failed to get support and died, as it should've if it was that complicated.

David, your post contained many truisms but I'm not sure they were really relevant to the proposals that many people today are suggesting. First, you are correct that in an EMERGENCY hospitals are required to give life saving and sustaining treatment regardless of the patients ability to pay. They'll still get a bill. And try to get treatment for your latest attack of multiple sclerosis or cancer treatments. Hospitals are only REQUIRED to give EMERGENCY treatment to indigents.

As for the VA, you are again correct. They suck. I was unfortunate enough to have to train some techs in the VA in Tuskegee and worked on a mobile CT scanner that went to the VA in Montgomery. At its very best, VA healthcare is mediocre and I'm trying to be kind. Not across the board. I've met some very fine folks who work in some. (Anyone here who has worked for or been a patient of one who was thouroughly pleased with your experience, please, offer an opposing viewpoint in the spirit of fairness) Military healthcare is better but not by far in many cases. (TigerAl's hint for the day: Always be very leary of anyone who, by law, cannot be sued!) But, no one's ever suggested, not even the Clinton plan, that healthcare would be taken over by the government to be run like the VA.

The various plans have to do with a government payor system of insurance. My company would not be run by the government and I wouldn't become a government employee. It would be handled the same way it always has with the exception of who provides the insurance. Who pays for it, how much it'll cost and who gets it have been the details to be worked out. From what I understand about the Canadian healthcare system, it is run much in the same way that our military healthcare system is. Everyone is covered but there is no profit component for healthcare providers. One transplanted Canadian doctor I talked to back in 1992 or 1993, whenever the Clinton plan was being introduced, said that doctors were leaving Canada in droves because they could make almost infinitely more money in the US. THAT is the reason you have to wait so long for some treatment in Canada.

But, please don't think that Blue Cross Blue Shield or other third party payors are the model of efficiency, either. They're pretty good, but they often drop the ball, IMO. Example: MRI has been around for about 20 years. As little as five years ago BCBS wouldn't pay for an MRI of the head for headaches. MR was and is the gold standard test to evaluate the brain. It costs about three times as much ($1280 where I work) as a CT scan. So, patients would have to have a CT scan and only then would BCBS pay for an MRI. Before a patient has cervical spine surgery, the doctor would need to see what level was affected. In the old days, we did myelograms. Then came CT. Then came MRI, which again, is the gold standard. BCBS wouldn't pay for an MR straight out. Instead, the patient had to have a myelogram followed by a CT. Only then would they pay for the MR. Tons of money was wasted doing junk studies that were cheaper in the short run because some greedy insurance fat-ass was worried more about having to cut checks than providing the quality healthcare he promised to his customer.

I think we need to provide health insurance to as many people in this country as we can, not only because it's the right thing to do but, because society eventually pays for it in one way or another anyway. This falls into the category of 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'

I did read the article and that is why I did not mention democrats in my reply. Both parties have their different ideas on how to make universal healthcare. Like you said, insurance companies are not the model agencies either, but they are better then not having them at all, even with the headaches I have had with them. Luckily, my wife works for Healthsouth, but at a private physician's office as the x-ray tech as part of a referral contract that Healsouth has with the doctor's office. So, I kind of get some "extra benefits" (nothing illegal), that I do not have to worry about filing with insurance (ie, free samples when prescribed, free x-rays, CT scans, MRIs). I know others are not that fortunate when they have insurance and it is even worse for those that do not. My sister is in her mid 20s and has been diagnosed with diabetes since she was 8. She can't get medical insurance without paying a ridiculous price, which would kill her families monthly income. A few weeks ago, we had the biggest scare we have had in years when her sugar got up in the 500 range in she went into a diabetic coma. Doctors were not optmistic she would survive, but she was a figher and pulled through in just three days time and was released in five days. Know, since it was a county hospital, they had to take her in, but it you have to wonder if she would have stayed in poor health, how long the hospital would keep her knowing she had no insurance. Hell, on the first day she was in, they were in my brother-in-laws face asking how they were going to pay for her stay. At least with private insurance, you are going get treated better by the hospital, because they are about the money. I would like to believe that phsicians and nurses are the same way, but we all not all are. Now, imagine of we go to a straight government run healthcare system which will be overloaded with patients that will go to the doctor for every little sniffle, because it is not on them to pay anymore. That is where we run in to the problem. The serious cases will clogged by the ones that could have been taken care with something more simple. You are least likely to go to the doctor or hospital for something you can take care of yourself if you have to pay the co-pay and other charges even with insurance. If you don't have to pay a penny, then you are going to take advantage of that and then we have a problem. The government, of course, will negotiate lower prices for medical care even lower then insurance and then the service will suffer for all. The proposed programs allow for private insurance to continue and the universal healthcare for those that can't get it through work, etc, but even still then you still will have the program of medical field being overwhelmed with cases, which I would specualte that 50% could have been handled without professional medical care. Heck I know people that use their private insurance way more then necessary, so wouldn't it be logical that it would be worse when it is free? Like I said, if it can be done, then great. But do we all really think that our politicians, regardless of party, will be able to run it correctly?

[Tiger Al 0]

But do we all really think that our politicians, regardless of party, will be able to run it correctly?

I think so. Perfectly? No. There is no solution that would be universally perfect. But, correctly and adequately, yes. I think this is something that we, as a country, need to take care of. Will it cost money? Yes. Will it be easy? No. Many questions wil have to be answered and it will take some work, but it is the right thing to do.

[MDM4AU 336]

Before we go turning the reigns over to the feds, we need to educate the public. Instead of blaming the healthcare insurance industry, we need to blame, in huge part, the nations litigious nature for the cost of healthcare.

FYI: A study by PriceWaterhouse Cooper found that government mandates, litigation and fraud accounted for 27% ($18 billion) of health cost increases. Increased consumer demand due to advertising (RX) accounted for 15% (10 billion). General inflation (Consumer Price Index) accounted for 18% ($12 billion).

The increasing number of lawsuits in the healthcare industry and outrageous punitive damage claims result in limited access to healthcare.

Nearly 41 million Americans are uninsured and 75 million people were uninsured at one point during 2001 and 2002. Lawsuits raise costs for healthcare and coverage, increasing the number of people without insurance. Companies must invest time, money and other resources fighting these lawsuits. If personal injury lawyers are successful, the additional costs of a damage award or settlement must be factored into the company's cost of doing business, ultimately increasing the cost of premiums. According to a study published in the Journal of Health Economics, every ten percent increase in the cost of insurance creates a three to four percent decrease in the number of people who choose to purchase coverage. (Going without Health Insurance, Families USA, March 10, 2003; "Number of Uninsured Americans On the Rise," Associated Press, March 5, 2003; " Avoiding Health Insurance Crowd-Out," Journal of Health Economics, March 2000)

Click here SICK OF LAWSUITS to read how litigation is killing the healthcare system.

Before we blame HC insurance companies, blame the Rx companies for spending $2.5 billion a year on direct to consumer advertising. Shouldn’t the doctors know what is best for the patient? Half the commercials don’t even tell you what the drug is for. How do you think that Rx commercial is funded?

Here is a report by ABC News regarding the Rx business and the costs, etc.:

"Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit & The Public Health" - ABC 5/29/02

I’m sure someone on here has an argument regarding this and that is fine, I am simply going by what I have found.

I could go on and on about all of this. This is no way an attempt to attack anyone on here it is just stating my educated view. To turn it over to the government would be a mistake! It’s one step closer to socialized medicine and I will let you talk to my neighbor from Europe and let her tell you what a crock that is!

Regarding TigerAl on the BCBS topic:

I don't know about five years ago to comment but in the last two years it has been covered (MRI) with BCBS of Alabama. To my understanding, it has been covered as far back as 4 years ago. The only thing in common that BCBSAL has with any other BCBS plan is they are both a part of the BCBS Association. That being said, I can't comment on other plans.

With all standard BCBSAL BlueCard PPO plans, the MRI is covered at 100% either with a deductible or a co-pay (aka co-insurance.) or nothing to pay. With the basic small group (2-14 employees) health plan it is covered at 80%.

With some large groups (51+ employees) different changes are made to plans to help keep the cost of claims down. Those changes are made by the Employer.

BCBSAL is one of only 42 BCBS plans in the US the last time I checked. It is one of only about 12 in the nation that are Not For Profit.

BCBSAL operates on approximately 8 cents on the dollar. 92 cents of every premium dollar paid goes to claims.

BCBS has given out the Brand Excellence Award the last 8 years. BCBSAL has won 8 years straight. Efficiency and participant satisfaction are part of the factors that are judged.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama:

Year 2001 Health contracts for Inpatient Services (Hospital Charges)

Charges covered: $2,395,498,516

BCBSAL paid: $829,797,819

Savings through negotiated hospital contracts: $1.5 billion

Year 2001 Preferred Outpatient Facility Contacts (Doctor’s Office Charges)

Charges covered: $1,590,750,997

BCBSAL paid: $598,098,998

Savings through negotiated POF contracts: $992 million

Year 2001 Prescription Drugs

BCBSAL prescription drug payments: $589,724,416

Negotiated provider savings: $156 million

Manufacturer discounts: $40 million

Drug utilization review and physician education: $28 million

Savings and cost avoidance: $224 million

(*2002 data will be out later this year.)

FYI: In the state of AL there is coverage for those who don't get it from an employer. The cost may be high but that is the risk factor for the ins. The majority of those on it can't get it anywhere else due to health problems (adverse selection). AHIP (AL Health Insurance Plan) is the program and you can call the state for more info. ALFA offers BCBSAL coverage for individuals based on their health and age and sex similar to life insurance. BCBSAL that is not acquired through ALFA, is for groups only. With the group plans, all are accepted regardless of health, age, or sex. BCBSAL requires the employer to pay a percentage of the employee's premium.

Just wanted to speak my mind a little bit!

[Tiger Al 0]

Regarding TigerAl on the BCBS topic:

I don't know about five years ago to comment but in the last two years it has been covered (MRI) with BCBS of Alabama. To my understanding, it has been covered as far back as 4 years ago. The only thing in common that BCBSAL has with any other BCBS plan is they are both a part of the BCBS Association. That being said, I can't comment on other plans.

It has actually flip-flopped. Now, BCBS (and others) will not pay for a CT of the head with a history of headaches.

I'm not knocking BCBS. Just offering some examples of what I thought was short-sighted stupidity on theirs and others part.

As far as lawsuits, I'm gonna guess that you'd be a big proponent of binding arbitration. As I said before, I'd be very leary of entering into any contract or situation that took away my right to a trial, whether civil or criminal.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

The more I talk to people about health care, the more I am convinced something needs to change. I'm not sure what. I'm leery of the government taking over this because it seems to me that anything the gov't takes over manages to be less efficient and more costly than it was before they got into it. It also seems to cost WAY, WAY more than anyone who is touting the gov't taking over a program projects that it will.

But, health care costs are skyrocketing. Some of it is from lawsuits. Some of it is from fraud. But some of it is from an industry that is "for profit", maximizing those profits on something people's lives literally depend upon. I am a full-on capitalist on most everything. You make a product or provide a service better than others, you should be able to reap whatever the market will pay for it. There is nothing wrong with making money or being rich. But when it comes to people's lives, there's a moral incongruency I have trouble with and I haven't worked it all out in my head.

All I know is...something has to change.

[MDM4AU 336]

I am not really for binding arbitration! It is good in theory, but I am not sure about it as a whole. I choose not to sign anything I don't have to regarding accepting BA.

I am unaware of BCBSAL not covering CT. I will almost bet my house that it is covered. If a doctor orders a CT as part of a diagnosis, it is covered just like diagnostic labs and x-rays. If I am wrong, I will correct that statement. My sources are quite reliable.

[DKW 86 7,441]

The crux of my original post needs more background. I studied with a Prof at AU that researched govt expenditures. He found a whopping 72% of govt outlays for most small to near large programs went to non-client expenditures. Read that as payroll, overhead, and whatever. In other words only 28% of evey dollar you give to the tax man gets to the intended Fed govt receipient.

We send a dollar to ADC, the kids get 28 cents. That is scandalous. The Dems will tell you that if you save $20m in ADC expenditures from efficiency improvements. Then you cannot send it back to another program, you must continue to spend int on payroll and overhead. Because, "any cut in any program would be 'mean' to the prgram's receipients."

So why save money? They dont! They throw cash away by the bucket full and cuss any taxpayer who says he wants it accounted for.

The Dept of Education under Clinton in 2000, misplaced $800M. Not a trace of who it went to at all. It was sent out in student loans, gurantees, and grants. One man collected over $8m himself using simple forged applications. They found him in the Bahamas. But the $800m had no receipts, no records. It just disappeared.

Well dont hold your breath about reforms to the Dept of Education, there wont be any reforms. What a great example, the DOE. Failed prgrams, failed schools, failed teachers and no one reaches out to help and correct them. We just get told that they need more money to throw at the problem. We cant even try vouchers or teacher teasting, or anythng that might actually help.

Just shut up and pay your taxes......

[Tiger Al 0]

I am not really for binding arbitration!  It is good in theory, but I am not sure about it as a whole.  I choose not to sign anything I don't have to regarding accepting BA.

I am unaware of BCBSAL not covering CT.  I will almost bet my house that it is covered.  If a doctor orders a CT as part of a diagnosis, it is covered just like diagnostic labs and x-rays.  If I am wrong, I will correct that statement.  My sources are quite reliable.

You are partially right. I didn't say BCBS wouldn't pay for a CT. It depends on the diagnosis, or ICD-9, code. A diagnosis of 'headaches' will probably not be paid for. I may be wrong about BCBS per se. Insurance claims are complicated because each carrier has its' own particular quirks. Medicare is a very, very tricky one to deal with.

A doctor can order any test he or she likes, but it is not always deemed 'medically necessary' by insurance carriers. If it's not, they won't pay.

[CCTAU 3,346]

I am not really for binding arbitration! It is good in theory, but I am not sure about it as a whole. I choose not to sign anything I don't have to regarding accepting BA.

I am unaware of BCBSAL not covering CT. I will almost bet my house that it is covered. If a doctor orders a CT as part of a diagnosis, it is covered just like diagnostic labs and x-rays. If I am wrong, I will correct that statement. My sources are quite reliable.

Arbitration is the WORST way to go (easily bribed). Tort reform in the area of loser pays would be a tremendous service to the american public. Want health care to go down, put a limit on lawsuits. maybe have a lower level of restitution that if you lose, you pay court costs ALONG with your lawyer. Not sure how it would work and it would leave some people in "no mans" land, but hell its worse now.