An alternative to Obamacare, starting with advice from Whole Foods

John Mackey is the CEO of Whole Foods. He's a guy who leads by example only taking a $1 salary, and created a healthcare fund for employees to use toward their care as they wish. I don't know if you guys read this from the other day but it's worth checking out. John Mackey tried to help with the whole healthcare issue by offering advice through experience of his growing company profits and very happy employees in regards to what they do to help with their healthcare. In doing so, he also criticized Obamacare. As a result, some people are calling for a boycott of Whole Foods.

Below is the article where he addresses issues and fixes needed with our current system, which starts with a quote:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

He then addresses many issues he sees and what needs done and finishes the article saying:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

 

Well, Reseq, let me give you my perspective.

I worked for Whole Paycheck. John Mackey is full of crap, across the board, and it isn't just on this issue. From the universe-wide chasm between what his company mission purports itself to be about and what it delivers, to the safety and welfare of the people who work for him, the man is nothing but a guy who has sought, and largely achieved, to destroy anything in his path in his bid for global, corporate dominance, on the backs of good, largely starry-eyed, people. Start here, as only one, a pretty typical example.

Yes, it isn't specific to his "healthcare proposal," and I apologize for that...I may return to honor your thread with specifics, as you deserve an honorable reply. For now, given my experience of the man and his practices, I felt the need to reply.

 

When I read about this over the weekend and say the negativity and things like boycott and protest, all I could think of was UNION...

Another responsible business owner that cares and helps being shit on by the moonbat faithful is all I see now. Its really sad. We too pay our employees health care 100%. You take care of those that work for you and they take care of you. Its a great ethic to have and one that many business owners share sincerely.

 

I can't imagine government health care, will it be as pleasant as a trip to the DMV? If we don't like the care we are receiving, will they be responsive? After all, they won't be a private company eager to get our business. If they are really really bad, can we sue the government for malpractice?

 

there are two parts to insurance
a-administration
b-risk
i know many large companies that handle the risk factor themselves while they contract the administration of their health insurance to other insurance companies at a fraction of cost.
maybe the country can do the same. risk becomes public while administration of the plan becomes private.

 

If they made the administration private and risk public, hopefully they would not require the portion of the "public" that has refused government insurance to pay for the "risk"?

 

in my system all the risk would be made public for everyone and everyone would pay for it, then you can choose your private administrator. supplemental provider and so on.
the administrators would be paid by the govt. they do the same thing that insurance companies do now except carry the risk.

 

On discussing the merits of the various proposals for amending and adjusting the current American health care system I am struck by several facts:

1. Take a look at this map showing nations providing some kind of universal health care (not always complete--but at least some aspect of coverage across the population)



The US is the only wealthy nation in the world without some kind of universal coverage.

In this regard the US looks awfully like the majority of the continent of Africa in this regard. It is fascinating that various wealthier and poorer nations have some kind of universal care while we don't.

A form of universal health coverage can be instituted which is limited in scope, protective of more people, but doesn't break the financial bank.

2. When I listen to the political commentary opposed to universal health care I respectively turn to an incredible insight into the plans, business method of operating, and political strategies of the large insurance companies.

The insight has been provided by Wendell Potter. For 20 years he worked in corporate communications for large insurance companies. During the last couple of years he was head of corporate communications for Cigna, one of the largest health care insurers in the nation. He was at the cusp of the discussions concerning the insurance industry's response to health care issues, working with representatives of the other insurers, working with his most senior staff at the industry and crafting their responses to various issues.

The link to an interview with him is found here and extracts from his interview are provided below:


His qualifications

Prior to that he once headed corporate communications for Humana, another large health insurer.

His status as a spokesperson for the industry:

His description of the tactics of the health care industry

Some of his mode of work while at Cigna and how they use their corporate revenues

 

I'm not convinced either way, but having been in the military and experienced healthcare our government attempted to provide and seeing their other programs WAAAYYYY off the mark of their predicted budget I can't help but worry about going in any direction toward government outside of regulations. Granted Obama isn't pushing for military like care, but this is exactly what one would do as the first step in that direction.

How I see it, our main problems people want addressed are:
1) COSTS - It needs to be affordable and reachable by any citizen who is capable and wants to work for it.
2) COVERAGE - pre-existing conditions really burns some people while others can become buried in debt due to a clause that keeps something from getting covered.

We've got to stop the runaway frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing malpractice insurance which will greatly help with costs. We need to stop the fraud. Pre-existing conditions are rough but what can we do when people who can afford it refuse to get health insurance until they find out they have cancer and want everyone else to pay for their treatment?

There's got to be ways to iron out these issues without more government control. When you look at the numbers, we are doing great in regards to mortality rates of those with cancer compared to other countries. Other things like wait times, and rationing are just not happening in the US. There's no smoking gun showing we need to change our system over to be like other countries. The closest thing to it is our lower life expectancy, but it's directly attributed to our poor choices with our own health and laziness causing obesity and death.

I live in Austin, Texas which is the Whole Foods headquarters. I know many people who work there and are very happy with the way the benefits are. No doubt nothing is perfect and there will always be people who will speak out against any possible answer or complain about something. Maybe his advice is poor as you dig into the details, but I feel it's worth looking at. It's great that healthcare is such a huge issue now people are taking notice to, so rather than let one party or group decide for everyone, let's throw out all options and theories while NOT ignoring the facts of where we're REALLY lacking here and how much better we can REALLY make it. There will always be crooks trying to screw the system, there will always be people refusing to pay a cent for insurance or even go to the doctor. This bill is being looked at by some as what will fix all our problems and with the issues I see and our government's history with poor management and budgeting, that's ridiculous.

 

@reseg:

Nice comments. I am strongly for controlling the run away costs associated with health care, insurance.

I am 2ndly for expanding health care coverage.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about it being tied to the government or not. Dealing with insurance companies is horrendous and sometimes cruel and inhuman. Some of the very many methods for "universal health care" as provided around the world are dramatically less bureaucratic than others.

The fear mongers who scream about government control never seem to argue the case about care for individuals or the issues of pre existing conditions/ and or insurance companies ramping up the costs/ eliminating coverage. Those issues screw people every which way.

On the issue of law suits and "frivolous" law suits: Not all law suits are frivolous. Some are well deserved.

I would like to see hard data on two things. What is the hard cost impact on health care from law suits. Exactly what is the cost? I haven't seen that anywhere. I see lots of screaming about "frivolous" law suits.

Secondly how to determine the difference between justifiable law suits and what is determined to be frivolous.

If there were hard facts on the impact of law suits in general there could be details established to limit its impact. Alternatively describing ALL law suits as "frivolous" is simply partisan bs.

As to the way Whole Foods provides health care...I can't comment because of lack of experience. From my friends comments and with regard to my less involved analysis I don't like this idea of medical savings plans.

It looks to me as a way not to spend on health care.

Hey look I can afford to spend a lot...and we cover some (but not all costs for employees.). Still I gotta deal with the details. This stuff is brutally complicated and when anything is brutally complicated....those that write the contracts always win. I know...I worked in a world dominated by complex contracts for 2 decades.

 

I'm boycotting Whole Foods because of this op-ed. It's nothing but a bunch of nonsense right wing "solutions" to a problem they don't want to fix. Most of his "solutions" would do next to nothing to fix the problem with health care in the US and a good many of them would actually make it worse.

Disgusting.

I'd like those who support the private health insurance industry over the health of the American people to answer a simple question: What Value Do The Private Health Insurance Companies Bring?

Over $700 billion a year that gets paid to the private health insurance companies goes to overhead and profits. That's $700 billion that essentially goes out the window (to somewhere other than actual health care.) This is why our system is more expensive than any other in the world while providing far inferior results (#37 in the world in health care outcomes, #50 in life expectancy.) That's 30% profit/overhead for the private health insurance companies. In comparison Medicare's overhead is just 4%.

So what value do the private health insurance companies bring besides wasting billions of dollars? They stand in the way between a doctor and their patient? Yes. They do that. But is that value? I don't see it. Doctors all over the US complain about how much trouble they have getting what the coverage they need for their patients when dealing with the private health insurance companies. On the other hand, they have much less such problems dealing with Medicare.

Nearly one million Americans goes bankrupt every year because of medical expenses. That's shocking enough on it's own (and it's the primary reason America has a far higher bankruptcy rate than other industrialized countries such as the UK.) But what about when you add in this fact: 75% of those who go bankrupt because of medical expenses have private health insurance.

Yes! The under reported fact is that health insurance reform isn't just about helping those who don't have health insurance, it's also about helping those who do. The way the system is currently set up (with inadequate regulations) the health insurance companies routinely cut coverage from those who need it most (those who get seriously sick or injured) because those customers cut into their profits too much. For those that they aren't able to cut (they will look for any loophole they can find...) they will raise their premiums until the customer is going break trying to pay for their health insurance (which they may now need just to survive.)

This is the system the private health insurance companies are giving us. This is the system people like John Mackey and the rest of those who are opposed to real health insurance reform (which includes The Public Option at the least) want to give us more of.

Sound like a bum deal? Yes. I think so. If you want to do something about this, you must start making noise now because those who are trying to kill the reform our country so badly needs (just so some rich folks can get a little richer) are making a lot of noise right now. Go to http://www.StandWithDrDean.com to learn more about what you can do. Another good site is http://www.HealthCareForAmericaNow.org

Write your congressman and your senators. Let them know you support The Public Option and they should do so as well. Cite the statistics above as well as this clincher: Over 10,000 Americans have already died this year because of inadequate health care.

---

I'd also like to point out that all of the same scare tactics the right wing are using to try to kill The Public Option today were used against Medicare in the 1960s. Now no Republicans will vote to repeal Medicare. Why? Because they know their constituents love it. They know just as well that their constituents would love the Public Option. This is why they must kill it now. To protect the profits of their private health insurance industry friends - they must never let the American people know what they are missing out on.

 

Reseq, I'd agree with you on the notion of cutting the costs due to frivolous lawsuits, and would also extend it to end the absolute stranglehold of the insurance industry on healthcare, as well as a push to make medical education more affordable (and more rigorous), all to change the entire paradigm of "turn and burn" billables doctors find themselves in. I've spoken to this before, so I won't repeat it here.

With Earl, I don't agree that lawsuits are necessarily frivolous, and determining which suits are, and which aren't, would be difficult to achieve.

I can't agree with your intimations on pre-existing conditions:

I think if we'd scratch just a bit, we'd find a good many folks having a tough time getting coverage are with "pre-existing" conditions precisely because they had no coverage or care to begin with. If more people had coverage, and routine, pre-emptive medical care was the norm, you'd find a heck of a lot less people being waylaid by a serious or life-threatening surprise, then scrambling for emergent, drastic measures.

One thing I find troubling is those who are against the very idea of a national health care system see it as all "one" model, routinely referring to one country or the other's debacles in their citizens' experiences of shortcomings. Why not take what has worked, and modify or abandon what hasn't? I won't repeat here, either, what I have come to learn about how some EU citizens, particularly the French (or ex-pats who have been under the French model), feel about their system. I did discuss this earlier. Food for thought.

On John Mackey and Whole Paycheck, I've said my perspective briefly, but permit me to add a bit more (warning - rant follows).

My experience of Mackey is that he seeks a corporate, global empire, and he will do anything unethical, perhaps even illegal, to achieve it....only one example: firsthand, I watched the destruction of a decent competitor, Wild Oats, by completely underhanded tactics that bely the "Whole Foods" groove-channel vibe....

To wit, he posted under alias for years on weblogs, in prep for destroying Wild Oats, by slanderously trashing them - in the hopes of driving down WO stock value. Really ethical guy, class act.

In truth, Mackey won't be happy until he has extinguished all competition, under corporate shield. Screw the Jeffersonian ideal of a nation of smallhold, free shopkeepers, dotting the land, in unimpinged commerce. The man has profited quite handsomely from some of the greasiest corporate practice, and no propaganda otherwise will alter that.

One thing this - his fervent desire for titanic size, scope, market share- means is that his supposed mission, to "stay local" and sustain the small producer, is absolute crap. Though little placards pollute every aisle, stuff like how Whole Paycheck's mission is to "support the small farmer," the truth is utterly different.

He buys shiploads of mega-producer (and often mediocre -see the pyramids of crap wine, "natural health" items, for instance), product, in the main, because he has the economy of scale to do so; he then touts the mission to the [warning: generalization ahead] largely gullible, yuppie shoppers who like to feel good and lefty once a week by mounting a linen shawl, hopping in their gas-guzzler SUV's, and "buying local" at Whole Paycheck, where they drop obscene amounts of money sustaining Mackey's empire.

Just came to this - from my experience, this is pretty accurate, from Slate. I say it is accurate because I bought for WF, and I know who sources the company:

As to the folks working in Texas, I can't speak to that. I can only tell you my experience [warning: another generalization ahead], which is largely one of a bunch of very deluded, very nice, either very young, would-be hippies (reminiscing about an era they never owned), or old, equally starry-eyed hippies, who are happy to be working for the Empire, as long as they can wear a neato green apron, and be part of the "organic industry" club.

I say deluded, because it's quite simple: if any of these kids, largely leftist in outlook (but only because it's "cool), stopped to think about what Mackey really stands for, they'd run for the hills. From my experience, the working conditions of WF stores are really unsafe - everything is devoted to selling area, with relatively nothing in the back production, storage and receiving areas for workers to safely negotiate their work (I am not exaggerating). Any whiff of legitimate grievance is met by a bank of management - "team leaders" - ready to pounce, in a way I haven't seen in all my years in corporate life. The structure and mentality is Mackey's, his public masks notwithstanding.

"Social Responsibility": EVERY single day, I saw literally truckloads (NO - I am not exaggerating, I mean truckloads) of absolutely good food tossed into the compactor, to be crapped down the environmental toilet with the rest of WF's refuse. The reason? There might be a microdot on a Bellwether Acres Dwarf applequinceomatorello, or a growth seam on the chartreuse gravid-lobed "raw glucose" bell pepper, or a slight shade of bone, as opposed to ivory, on the mega-sourced "heirloom" high-chaparral, alpaca milk cheese. I couldn't believe what I saw, and when I thought of the number of families daily that could be fed by this, stuff tossed as garbage, I asked about why we couldn't donate to food shelters.

I was routinely told, "liability." When I showed that any shelter can draft any release desired, absolutely indemnifying WF from any liability whatsoever, I was met with "team leader" ire, for stirring the pot. THIS IS COMPANY WIDE. What Whole Paycheck craps out daily, waste passed on to the backs of idiot would-be "green" consumers in the form of its standard gouging, would feed populations of people. Every single day.

(Ahem....).

Sorry for the rant, and please take it for what you will. Where I rest on the ideological continuum isn't neatly pegged. But I can say, Mackey is a corporate wolf in (organic) sheep's wool, from my direct experience.

*************

Just a side note, but Reseq, I, too, am a vet, and I worked in "govt. healthcare." I was an orthopedic ward corpsman. I can only speak from my perspective. I can say unabashedly that the NRMC I worked for produced some of the finest medicine then in existence, to include cutting edge techniques - microsurgery, for instance, new to the field. Ask this lady, a patient in our unit. I'm actually quite fond of my memories, and saw a lot of sailors and marines made well, by top notch medicine.

 

I would really like to see an analysis that looked at lawsuits and showed the following:

1. What is the cost impact on insurance from lawsuits?

2. Try and differentiate between frivolous or outrageous demands in lawsuits and those that are justified.

3. How often, when representatives of the far right extremists, and their political buddies who simply want to attack the legal industry, use the term "frivolous" as an adjective, every time they describe lawsuits.

Look, not every law suit is frivolous. Its that simple. Endlessly using the term frivolous is a DANGEROUS twisting of reality.

I would suggest that every user of the term "frivolous" NEVER be allowed to ever sue anyone or any entity for anything at any time regardless of the circumstances.

I think those folks would be pissing in their pants.

 

Thanks for the great input. I thought I'd try to hit up the frivolous lawsuit issue with any info I could find.

In regards to frivolous lawsuits in healthcare, here are a few results/facts:

# Lawsuit costs passed on to consumers add up to nearly $721 per year for every person in America today. (taken from the year 2001, with a total of $205 billion)
# Because of litigation fears, 79% of doctors said they had ordered more tests than they would based only on professional judgment of what is medically needed.
# It takes at least a year to resolve most lawsuits, and delays of three to five years are not uncommon. Unfortunately, injured people with legitimate claims can wait years before their cases go to trial.
# An estimated $50 billion per year is spent on unnecessary test procedures designed only to guard doctors and hospitals against malpractice claims.
# Almost half of the money spent by physician insurers goes towards defending cases that ultimately are closed without compensation paid to the claimant.
#More than 40 percent of doctors reported avoiding prescribing appropriate medication because they knew the drug might be involved in litigation.

Source 1

In health care, a significant portion of every dollar billed goes to either paying for lawsuits or for set-asides for future lawsuits. All medical manufacturers, doctors and hospitals must pay astronomical fees to insurers to be protected from the onslaught of lawsuits, mostly frivolous, that are filed against them each year. All over the TV are ads soliciting plaintiffs to sue drug companies, doctors, etc., regarding drugs that may have had a couple of patients experience an adverse effect. Using contingency fees, people are encouraged to file suit at no cost in the hope that the company will settle to save the costs of litigation.

Source 2

Medical Malpractice insurance for OB/GYNs typically range from $100,000 to $250,000 per year. Even ones reporting to have never had a lawsuit in 20+ years of their work, still paying this. This $ comes directly out of our pocket.

Now this doesn't answer the question of how many are frivolous, but it DOES show a CLEAR problem with either lawsuits or doctors procedures neither of which will be fixed with Obamacare.

We may not know the exact stats of how many are frivolous, but seeing stats like these will give you an idea of how lawsuit happy people are:
Since its widely used cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol was withdrawn from the market, Bayer is facing more than 8,000 lawsuits. The New York Times notes that at least 6,000 of those lawsuits, however, are being filed by people who did not suffer any side effects whatsoever.

This is without even touching on the subject of insurance fraud. I could go all day on this with studies showing cost issues and while some make up only a few percent of the costs, they add up and ARE our problems.

I really want to get into looking at what government has already done with healthcare programs like Tenncare, Medicare, Medicaid, and the native american indian healthcare program but I just don't have the time right now other than a quick comment.

Without a doubt Medicare is screwed, it blows through its budget, the fraud is crazy, the denials are crazy, it's now putting out more than they can bring in and the baby boomers haven't even hit the program hard yet.

Medicaid has proven to cost more per person care wise than the private insurances. The talk above about overhead operating expenses is only one side of it. Things become much more clear when you look at the fact that it's more efficient in # of employees and streamline operation compared to Medicaid.

Tenncare, everyone familiar with this? If you aren't you have no right to be taking a stance for either side. This is a program tested in Tenn to do basically what Obamacare is trying to do. The costs went through the roof and hands down the care went in the toilet. There were outside problems involved and some good did come of it, but it's proven to be unsustainable.

The healthcare the government gives native american indians? It's a joke, I don't even have to comment.

Now, in regards to military care, I shouldn't have been so one sided northpointaiki, there were some great doctors that did great work and knew their stuff. However my problem was with 2 main issues that left me with no choices.

One was the allergy test rationing, during El Niño while stationed in Yuma, AZ some crazy allergies were set off leaving me with raw bleeding eyes and unable to sleep at night. I had never had allergies before and this was no normal case. I went twice to medical for help saying I just wanted to die. They said both times to just go buy some over the counter stuff. I had tried it... I asked for an allergy test and was told they had used them and wouldn't have more until the next fiscal year. They said I would have to go to the San Diego medical but they wouldn't send me unless I was on my deathbed.

The other issue was me going on a Westpack, I was ordered to have my wisdom teeth removed (which everyone had to do). The specialist that pulled wisdom teeth was out of San Diego and would be in the area for only 3 days pulling teeth so I had no choice but to do it with him at that time. The guy couldn't numb me and instead of trying anything different I was held down by multiple people to keep from jerking out of the chair and he cut out my impacted wisdom teeth. It was hell and I wanted to punch the guy. I had no choice tho, he was the one assigned/approved to do the work and I was on his schedule.

I'm sure this is not what Obama wants, but socialized medicine is this direction and I want nothing of it. Ultimately doctors will be assigned to specialties and areas and you're stuck with what you get kind of like a lot of areas are with public schools.

I see the need, and understand why people are supporting it, I just can't help but feel there's a better way. Maybe not just like Whole Foods style and health savings accounts, but that direction.

I understand people's beef with John Mackey. One side project site I started and own which is one of the largest notebook communities in the world notebookforums.com I've caught employees and even CEOs of major laptop companies trying to fool our members pretending to be a customer of another brand and bashing them while talking their up. I've taken it personal and publicly blasted these people and called them out. I've called off some big partnerships and banned companies from advertising because of it. However, I always separate their character and actions form their intelligence and products. My lack of respect for a person's actions doesn't change the fact that I could learn something positive from them. I really think John may be on to something we should at least put into the think tank and nobody would be required to respect his character in any way because of it.

Editing to add one more thing: People talk about the push against Obamacare being the insurance companies, which side is the drug companies on? Yup, they are FOR Obamacare in hopes of benefiting from it. You know the drug companies, that are known for their over the top lobbying and backroom deals? So while you say insurance companies are putting drones out against Obamacare, it could just as easily be pointed back saying drug companies are putting drones out to push this through as well as paying our politicians off.

 

Which is why it remains wealthy.

 

@Reseg:

Wow. nice information. I'll read it carefully. I got this feeling the first source might be pretty partisan, but I'll go through it closely. On the second source I've seen how high those OB/GYN insurance costs can be. Yup it is a problem. It has had two negative impacts that are very serious. It of course drives costs up to the patients and their insurance costs. Two it has driven people out of the practice and has had specifically bad impacts in driving OB/GYN docs out of practise in certain states where the insurance costs and problems are too severe.

They should take the lawsuit component of costs on healthcare and factor it in with regard to making decisions.

They should not eliminate lawsuits by any measure whatsoever. There are efforts with regard to health care changes and reform that are reviewing medical and hospital practises to cut out and eliminate mistakes.

Cr@p. Mistreat a patient in a serious way and it results in death.

I always think back to this friend of mine from when I was in high school. On a ski trip the guy broke his leg. He got transported to a hospital.

They reset the WRONG leg and put a big old heavy cast on the wrong leg.

Wh@t f*ck ups.

Years later I broke my wrist playing basketball flipping over a guys shoulder and falling down head first. I had broken my wrists before. The instant I fell I knew it was broken. When I went for x-rays the guy at the hospital who spoke to me said it wasn't broken. I was outraged. I told him to get someone else to review the x-rays. Sure it was broken. It needed to be set and get a cast. That numbskull would have sent me home and potentially caused more damage. The only savings grace was that I was aware of the problem based on prior experience.

They should measure the impact on health care costs caused by lawsuits. They should work to define the differences in types of lawsuits between justifiable and not. The definitions are in the details. Let experts hash it out.

If they set up limits on lawsuits based on hard facts....hey that is fine.

The stupid effort is to use the term "frivolous" connected to all law suits. That is an extreme example of policy being dictated by extreme partisan politics that would create enormous harm to many.

As to Mia's comments.

I'm sure you are deeply unaware that the US as an economy and to the extent it does offer govt health care (medicaid/medicare) spends far more per person on health care than does any other developed nation. Also the costs of health care within the US are increasing far faster than any other developing nation.

It is exactly why there needs to be some forms of health care reform. Exactly the forms are beyond me. If it isn't reformed it will bankrupt most of the US and move all the money into some teeny tiny percentage of folks focused on health care.

It is a financial disaster waiting to occur.

 

Q: Do you want government standing between you and your doctor?

A: Nah, I find my insurance company does a fine job of standing between me and my doctor.

Q: Is the US health insurance based on sharing risk amongst policy holders in order to reduce costs?

A: Hardly, it is based on reducing risk to the shareholder in order to increase profits.

It is pretty amazing to watch a senior on Medicare argue against Govt involvement in health insurance.

 

Q: Why are seniors speaking out against this healthcare bill?

A1: They don't want to see all healthcare go the direction of their failed Medicare. They aren't happy with Medicare, but have no choice because of the monopoly the government has on it. Did you know to receive your EARNED social security benefits, you MUST be enrolled in Medicare Part A?

Also, did you know about denials on Medicare claims and how slow moving it is? In 2001, 3.7 million appeals were filed for denial of payment by Medicare Part B. Despite a 2000 law requiring swift processing of appeals, a 2003 report by the General Accounting Office found significant delays in appeals processing.

A2:They don't want to see more cuts and denials than they already deal with in Medicare. "Obama has pledged that health-care changes won’t add to the deficit. To accomplish that, he’s proposed getting about $600 billion by reducing tax deductions available to the wealthy, and by trimming Medicare payments to insurance companies.

That won’t be enough to cover the overhaul costs. Obama said this week he plans in the coming days to disclose more proposals for raising “additional sources of revenue.” In a letter last week to Senate Democrats drafting legislation he said he will be proposing between $200 billion and $300 billion in further Medicare and Medicaid cuts."

So seniors understand how bankrupt Medicare is and the fact that baby boomers are about to drive it even more into the ground once they reach retirement age within the next few years.

source 1
source 2

I don't think you quite get it... When the insurance stands in the way of you getting a procedure done due to them fighting coverage, worst case scenario is you choose to go through with it and go into debt. NOW, in the case of the government if we go the direction and end up like other countries with socialized medicine, if they don't approve to cover the procedure and you try to go around them and even pay out of pocket, you can BE DROPPED from the program covering you involving this issue from that point on. So when the government steps between you and your Dr, it's MUCH different than the insurance company doing it.

 

Would that be anything like an HMO dropping a person for a fabricated or unknown "pre-existing" condition?

Does "debt" = bankruptcy? Often times, yes! BTW, "worst case" is death, not debt, and I know of several foks that have experienced that after letting minor health problems go untreated FOR LACK OF INSURANCE.

Do the ranks of non-insured increase costs for everyone? No doubt!

Your sources are 2nd hand and would be rejected by even a High School teacher. You need to trace them back to the source (e.g. the assertion "Medicare patients cannot pay cash for care", which appears to be a reversal of the facts which are that a physician can not accept cash for a Medicare covered service - a significant difference unless your goal is to foment fear).

 

Odd, the US Government Accountability Office seems to think its less than 5% of our GDP.

The reason it appears to you that the US spends more per person is because that "5%" is spent only on a small portion of the population as a whole. So that "per person" expenditure is a bit skewed.

Try and be a little more truthful in your responses in the future. Some people believe this sloppy drivel a lot of you spew here on a daily basis.

This we can agree on. What needs reformation is "health care costs", including tort reform, fraud and insurance industry practices. What we should be calling this is something other than "Health Care Reform". Its not health care itself that needs reforming. Its the rising costs associated with it, most of which could be contained by instituting some tort reform and regulation of the insurance industry.