Gov healthcare

[Jagger]

Ah, the free market at work. I wonder why our government can't understand that if you give the individual the power he/she will make the choices that will help our economy as a whole.

There is no such thing as a free market, bro.

 

[wkmac]

There is no such thing as a free market, bro.

Amen and I ain't praying to an ancient Egyptian god either!

The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex: A Deadly Fairy Tale

 

[Babagounj]

Boy, 10, dies of meningitis after being wrongly diagnosed with a migraine... despite mother insisting he had killer disease



By Paul Sims
Last updated at 11:49 PM on 21st October 2009

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-insisting-killer-disease.html#ixzz0Ufnx2nQq

Five different doctors saw this child and not one did any tests yet they all said it was just a migraine and discharged him.
Socialized medicine .
​

 

[klein]

Boy, 10, dies of meningitis after being wrongly diagnosed with a migraine... despite mother insisting he had killer disease



By Paul Sims
Last updated at 11:49 PM on 21st October 2009

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-insisting-killer-disease.html#ixzz0Ufnx2nQq​

Five different doctors saw this child and not one did any tests yet they all said it was just a migraine and discharged him.
Socialized medicine .​

Go find the 200000+of them per year in the USA ! :

From wikipedia :

A 2004 study of medical malpractice claims in the United States examining primary care malpractice found that though incidence of negligence in hospitals produced a greater proportion of severe outcomes, the total number of errors and deaths due to errors were greater for outpatient settings. No single medical condition was associated with more than five percent of all negligence claims, and one-third of all claims were the result of misdiagnosis.
A recent study by Healthgrades found that an average of 195,000 hospital deaths in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 in the U.S. were due to potentially preventable medical errors. Researchers examined 37 million patient records and applied the mortality and economic impact models developed by Dr. Chunliu Zhan and Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October 2003. The Zhan and Miller study supported the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 1999 report conclusion, which found that medical errors caused up to 98,000 deaths annually and should be considered a national epidemic.

more stats :



The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) produced an article highlighting these medical malpractice lawsuit statistics, with regard to patient deaths:

• 106,000 patients die each year from the negative effects of medication
• 80,000 patients die each year due to complications from infections incurred in hospitals
• 20,000 deaths per year occur from other hospital errors
• 12,000 people die every year as a result of unnecessary surgery
• 7,000 medical malpractice deaths per year are attributed to medication errors in hospitals

This totals up to 225,000 deaths each year, due to medical negligence of some nature. And that number is ever growing.
Medical malpractice lawsuits abound in the United States today. Many blame the problem on lack of training and insufficient staff in the medical field, but whatever the reason the statistics associated with these lawsuits are rather alarming.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on suits occurring in the 75 largest counties in the US,

• 90% of all medical malpractice lawsuits are brought by patients who have suffered permanent injury, or by those representing someone who has died as a result of malpractice.

• The Bureau of Justice Statistics also reported that almost half of all medical malpractice lawsuits filed in the US are brought against surgeons.

• Nearly 33% of medical malpractice lawsuits are attributed to non surgeons.

 

[brett636]

There is no such thing as a free market, bro.

You mean people are not free to spend their money on the goods and services they both need and desire? I call BS on your statement.

 

[brett636]

Try this then. World's best drinking water here :

Medical Tourism in Canada

Why Canada?

People traveling to Canada for medical reasons are mostly from the United States. Medical care in United States is almost double the cost of what it is in Canada, making Canada an attractive medical tourism destination for Americans.

However, those who are still skeptical about standard of care in America and Canada, should take a close look at the facts provided:

• Average in-hospital treatment costs are nearly twice as much in the U.S. ($20,673 U.S. vs. $10,373)

• There are 9.9 qualified nurses per 1000 population in Canada as compared to 7.9 nurses per 1000 population in US (so you get a highly personalized care!)

• Overall satisfaction with the surgical experience is similar in both countries (85.3% U.S. and 83.5% Canada).

• The number of acute care hospital beds in Canada is 3.0 per 1000 population as compared to 2.8 in US.

• Canadians have lower rates of in-hospital mortality (1.4% Canada vs. 2.2% U.S.).

• Administrative costs consume more of the total cost of treatment in the U.S. (38.2% of total costs in the U.S. vs. 31.7% in Canada).

• In-hospital cost of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in the U.S. is 82.5 % higher in the U.S. than in Canada.

• The mortality rate for end-stage renal disease is 47% higher in the U.S. than in Canada. Adjusted monthly costs of treatment are $503 higher in the U.S.

• Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. patients have reprocessed dialyzers used on them, compared with 0.0% of Canadian patients.

• Compared with the American counterparts, low-income Canadians have a significant survival.

• Advantage for 13 of the 15 kinds of cancer studied.

• One-year mortality rates following myocardial infarction are virtually identical for both countries (34.3% U.S. vs. 34.4% Canada).

• Canada has a higher rate of annual bone marrow transplants (0.89 per 100,000 population vs. 0.81per 100,000 in the U.S.)

• Canada has lower mortality rates for patients 65 and older three years after both low-mortality (18.52% U.S. vs. 15.31% Canada) and moderate-mortality (19.19% U.S. vs. 16.63% Canada) procedures.

• Survival rate for four disease condition is higher in Canada than in America:
o Colorectal cancer: 113 Canada vs. 108 U.S.
o Childhood leukemia: 118 vs.110
o Kidney transplants 113 vs. 100
o Liver transplants 123 vs. 102

• Above all, American citizen do not need visa if the length of stay is less than 180 days.

• The prescription drugs and medicines are far less expensive in Canada.


The high cost in America is mainly attributable to higher resource prices for products and labor and higher overhead costs resulting from a nonsocialized medical system.

In addition to the cost effective medical care, medical tourism to Canada is an opportunity to explore places of interest and relax in beautiful ambience - an opportunity worth grabbing indeed.

People from developed countries such as Canada, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Costa Rica, Hungary, India, Lithuania, Malaysia, Thailand, Belgium, Poland and Singapore have world class, cost-effective healthcare. Traveling to Canada for medical care just makes sense.

http://www.findprivateclinics.ca/resources/general/medical-tourism.php

Add on from wikepidea :

Some US employers have begun exploring medical travel programs as a way to cut employee health care costs. Such proposals have raised stormy debates between employers and trade unions representing workers, with one union stating that it deplored the "shocking new approach" of offering employees overseas treatment in return for a share of the company's savings. The unions also raise the issues of legalliability should something go wrong, and potential job losses in the US health care industry if treatment is outsourced.
Employers may offer incentives such as paying for air travel and waiving out-of-pocket expenses for care outside of the US. For example, in January 2008, Hannaford Bros., a supermarket chain based in Maine, began paying the entire medical bill for employees to travel to Singapore for hip and knee replacements, including travel for the patient and companion.

If you buy all that then I have some ocean front property in Kansas I can see you cheap.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HiddenCostsSinglePayer5.pdf

Other facts about the single-payer health system
in Canada
l
In 1993, Canadian patients waited on average 9.3 weeks between the time they saw their family physician and the time they actually received the specialist treatment they needed. By 2007, wait times had almost doubled to 18.3 weeks.
l
Median wait times in Canada are also almost double the wait that physicians consider clinically reasonable (Esmail and Walker, 2007b).
l
The Canadian single-payer system does not cover prescription drugs on a
universal basis. Only about one third of the Canadian population is eligible
for various government-financed drug programs. The remainder of the
population has private-sector drug insurance coverage or pays cash for
outpatient drugs.
l
Government-financed drug programs in Canada often refuse to cover many
new drugs at all. On average, only 44% of all new drugs that were approved safe and effective by Health Canada in 2004 were actually eligible for coverage under government drug-insurance programs by October 2007.
l
Even for the small percentage of new drugs that are actually covered by public drug programs, patients have to wait nearly one year on average after Health Canada’s approval to get public insurance coverage for these new drugs.
l
Consumers in Canada and the United States spend roughly the same proportion of their per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) on prescription drugs (1.5% in Canada; 1.7% in the United States). As a percentage of per-capita, after-tax income, the cost burden of prescription drug spending is slightly higher in Canada (2.5% in Canada; 2.3% in the United States).
l
In 2007, brand-name drugs in Canada were 53% less expensive on average than in the United States, but generic drugs in Canada were about 112% more expensive on average than in the United States.
l
Between the fiscal years 1997/98 and 2006/07, government spending on
health care grew on average across all 10 Canadian provinces at a rate of
7.3% annually, compared to 5.9% for total available provincial revenue, and
5.6% for provincial economic growth (GDP). This means that the Canadian
government’s spending on health care is growing faster than the government’s ability to pay for it.

 

[klein]

If you buy all that then I have some ocean front property in Kansas I can see you cheap.
Why shouldn't I buy it ? America is famous for malpractise lawsuits.
What I like about your onesided info, is they find one case in Canada or the UK, make it big news, while in the USA there are over 200.000 cases every year, or over 500 cases per day !

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HiddenCostsSinglePayer5.pdf

Other facts about the single-payer health system
in Canada
l
In 1993, Canadian patients waited on average 9.3 weeks between the time they saw their family physician and the time they actually received the specialist treatment they needed. By 2007, wait times had almost doubled to 18.3 weeks.
l
Median wait times in Canada are also almost double the wait that physicians consider clinically reasonable (Esmail and Walker, 2007b).
Wait times have gone down since, but still remain a problem.

l
The Canadian single-payer system does not cover prescription drugs on a
universal basis. Only about one third of the Canadian population is eligible
for various government-financed drug programs. The remainder of the
population has private-sector drug insurance coverage or pays cash for
outpatient drugs.
Never said they were free, only for seniors and low income citizens.
Your employment covers drug insurance plans here.
As I said before, UPS pays here $71.00 for dental and drugs per month coverage for each employer.
l
Government-financed drug programs in Canada often refuse to cover many
new drugs at all. On average, only 44% of all new drugs that were approved safe and effective by Health Canada in 2004 were actually eligible for coverage under government drug-insurance programs by October 2007.
Free drugs are exposed to acceptance approval of free financing from the government. Anybody with a private drug plan (someone employed or has private drug insurance, are not affected).
l
Even for the small percentage of new drugs that are actually covered by public drug programs, patients have to wait nearly one year on average after Health Canada’s approval to get public insurance coverage for these new drugs.
Same as above.
l
Consumers in Canada and the United States spend roughly the same proportion of their per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) on prescription drugs (1.5% in Canada; 1.7% in the United States). As a percentage of per-capita, after-tax income, the cost burden of prescription drug spending is slightly higher in Canada (2.5% in Canada; 2.3% in the United States).
Per capita we also use more prescription drugs. Since everyone can visit a doctor for free. Surly, your 27% uninsured won't get percriptions drugs unless they are really, really ill.
Also in 2007. It costed up to US 1.20 to buy a cdn dollar.
It has since backed of to US 0.96 to buy 1 C dollar.
l
In 2007, brand-name drugs in Canada were 53% less expensive on average than in the United States, but generic drugs in Canada were about 112% more expensive on average than in the United States.
Again, giving the dollar value in 2007 !
And see attached new Alberta rules.
l
Between the fiscal years 1997/98 and 2006/07, government spending on
health care grew on average across all 10 Canadian provinces at a rate of
7.3% annually, compared to 5.9% for total available provincial revenue, and
5.6% for provincial economic growth (GDP). This means that the Canadian
government’s spending on health care is growing faster than the government’s ability to pay for it.
That is a worldwide problem, not just ours.
Odd, they didn't compare US numbers here,mmmmhhhh.

View attachment 2166

Alberta cuts generic drug costs

Last Updated: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 | 4:29 PM MT CBC News

Alberta has set aside $5 million to provide an allowance for all pharmacies for each prescription less than $75. (CBC)

Prices for new generic drugs will be reduced from 75 per cent to 45 per cent of the brand-name drug price, the Alberta government said Tuesday.
Prices for existing generic drugs will also be reduced starting next April, said Minister of Health and Wellness Ron Liepert.
"Prescription drug costs continue to climb, and we need to bring those costs down for Albertans," said Liepert. "The next phase of our pharmaceutical strategy will reduce the out-of-pocket costs of prescription drugs for all Albertans, allow for quicker access to new drugs and give pharmacists a greater role in patient care."

Few problems solved since yesterdays announcement !

 

[brett636]

Alberta cuts generic drug costs

Last Updated: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 | 4:29 PM MT CBC News

Alberta has set aside $5 million to provide an allowance for all pharmacies for each prescription less than $75. (CBC)

Prices for new generic drugs will be reduced from 75 per cent to 45 per cent of the brand-name drug price, the Alberta government said Tuesday.
Prices for existing generic drugs will also be reduced starting next April, said Minister of Health and Wellness Ron Liepert.
"Prescription drug costs continue to climb, and we need to bring those costs down for Albertans," said Liepert. "The next phase of our pharmaceutical strategy will reduce the out-of-pocket costs of prescription drugs for all Albertans, allow for quicker access to new drugs and give pharmacists a greater role in patient care."

Few problems solved since yesterdays announcement !

Yea, we've had cheap generics here for some time now. We used our free enterprise system and now a 3 month supply of generic drugs cost $10 most places. No government action necessary.

 

[klein]

Yea, we've had cheap generics here for some time now. We used our free enterprise system and now a 3 month supply of generic drugs cost $10 most places. No government action necessary.

Guess, you beat me there.
We would only get it that cheap with a drug insurance card, that covers 90% of the costs (like UPS did, and all other jobs I had).

Kamagra (generic Viagra) is under $2.00 a pill here, the namebrand is about $5.00.
Good to see you get it for $10, as much as you need for 3 months.

I guess things will turn around soon, and we'll be buying online for US cheap drugs.

 

[wkmac]

You mean people are not free to spend their money on the goods and services they both need and desire?

The answer is no and the proof is easy. How many people desire to purchase and smoke marijuana or even grow marijuana only for their own personal use within their own home and yet the state along with the consent of an alleged majority restrict that choice in the marketplace! Extreme?

OK, sometime back in this forum we discussed cars as relates to fuel mileage and other alternatives and I think it was you who brought to light that VW builds a little 3 cylinder diesel (Lupo) that gets incredible mileage (70 mpg if I remember) and I think you even said that you'd love to have one. I even went out and looked the car up as I'd never heard of it until your mention and I had to agree with you too.

Now we both desire this car obviously yet we are barred by gov't action from purchasing because it's not been approved for VW to sell in this country. We can go to Mexico and purchase one (or could, no longer made) as they are sold there but bringing it back here we must pay protection money (various taxes) to the mafia (Washington) and maybe some local gangs (state and local thuggery) in order to exercise our right to that "free" desire you spoke of. Would that be similar of Coolhand Luke asking Boss Paul in his desire to shake the bush? "Not today Boy!" And Luke was living the free life too? I guess that chain link and razor wire is a pickett fence too!

There's the desire, here are a couple of customers in you and I and yet we are prohibited by Boss Godfrey (gov't mandate) from fulfilling our desires. Your point may have some limited truth but in a pure context, we do not have a truly free market and neither is the current healthcare system just as it's true that the proposed heathcare system won't be true free market either.

Our healthcare system as it stands is in fact unsustainable and was already a rigged statist capitalist game. Notice I didn't say free market or laissez faire? It is broken and has been for most of the 20th century. Along that span, the gov't has from time to time like the good illusionist been able to manipulate the audience but the audience is catching on as the illusionist is running out of tricks. I fully expect one more rabbit to come out of the hat and really what all the fuss is about is whether the rabbit will be all blue or have patches of red in it just so some of the audience gets the feeling they are relevant in all this nonsense too. That's OK, all we're doing is taking our dirt out of Boss Keen's ditch but then we have to remove our dirt from Boss Paul's yard to remove it back again from Boss Keen's ditch but eventually we'll get our mind right and Captain can sit on a better front porch and better rocker and watch us work!

No matter which side wins out in this thing, it's still putting lipstick on a pig and jagger's point is still true IMO. No argument that the proposed healthcare is not free market but then defending the current system is not defending free market either as the current system, to use the buzz word of the day, is socialist in itself at the behest and blessing of those who claim to oppose socialism. And I speak of republican/conservatives who talk a big game now but when someone else spoke of limited gov't a couple of years back on the big stage, ironic how they sounded then like the vocal opposition to the idea of limited gov't and the tea party types now. And these same people will still swear they voted for the right guy.

I used the term statist capitalist above and besides the fact that I'm using 2 adjectives as a person/place/thing (poor grammactical construction guilty as charged) I don't call nor do I believe in a so-called capitialist system. Opps, I must be socialist then! Did you know that socialism is or can be free market too? Desire! Choice! It's only not free market when the desire of choice is compelled against the person's will by the use of force or fraud. Remember, all human action is market and involves some form of economic choice. You think about that for a moment.

We have a capitalist system but the means of capitial are controlled by state sanctioned monolopy (federal reserve system) and granted protection by legal tender laws as expressed in fine print in the upper left corner of any Federal Reserve Note. Try making any public economic transaction or exchange with another medium and see how long it takes for the hand of power to come down? No free market in the medium of exchange and both democrats/republicans liberal/conservative condone, worship, and praise this economic system that we have.

How effective would segregation have been on the African American population had there been no legal tender laws or medium of exchange monopoly if the African American community could have created their own medium of exchange and use their labor to earn it? True economic freedom negates the power of racism as it frees the individual's position from being controlled by others via the State and "DEMOCRACY" because he's able to convert his property (labor, a concept we've long forgotten) into a medium outside the control of others who mean him harm by serving their own self interests.

Pertaining to my improper used 2 adjectives I close by quoting the late Murray Rothbard in a piece entitled "Statism verses Capitalism" circa 1972'

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term "capitalism." When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism's most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-"capitalist" analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible "feudalist" countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia "capitalist," while many Trotskyites would include China as well). Marxists, for example, consider India as a "capitalist" country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined.
If we are to keep the term "capitalism" at all, then, we must distinguish between "free-market capitalism" on the one hand, and "state capitalism" on the other. The two are as different as day and night in their nature and consequences. Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government — the State — to accumulate capital for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.
Throughout history, states have existed as instruments for organized predation and exploitation. It doesn't much matter which group of people happen to gain control of the State at any given time, whether it be oriental despots, kings, landlords, privileged merchants, army officers, or Communist parties. The result is everywhere and always the coercive mulcting of the mass of the producers — in most centuries, of course, largely the peasantry — by a ruling class of dominant rulers and their hired professional bureaucracy. Generally, the State has its inception in naked banditry and conquest, after which the conquerors settle down among the subject population to exact permanent and continuing tribute in the form of "taxation" and to parcel out the land of the peasants in huge tracts to the conquering warlords, who then proceed to extract "rent."

And where are the democrats/republican, liberals/conservatives not in this mix?

 

[Jones]

October 24, 2009, 6:00 am Universal Coverage: A Revenue Windfall?

By Anne Underwood

Arthur Ullian is president of the National Council on Spinal Cord Injury and co-author of two studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the economics of health care. In a forthcoming analysis, Mr. Ullian, the demographer Kenneth G. Manton of Duke University, the statistician Dennis Tolley of Brigham Young University and others conclude that expanded access to health care will generate revenue and savings for the federal government that are not accounted for in official cost estimates. Mr. Ullian spoke with the freelance writer Anne Underwood.
Q.
You and your co-authors say that over the long term, improved health care will actually contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury, even without the taxes and service cuts that Congress is considering in various legislative proposals. How is that possible?
A.
There are offsetting dollar gains that Congress and the Congressional Budget Office aren’t taking into account.
Q.
But the C.B.O. projects costs of around $800 billion over 10 years for the Senate Finance Committee bill, and so far that’s the cheapest of the proposals.

A.
The projections are an enormous percent of G.D.P., and they’re not sustainable, which is what everyone is yelling about. But that’s because no one is taking into account the health improvements that will result from covering millions of the uninsured.
Q.
How does that help?
A.
There are two parts to this theory. The first relates to the expansion of the labor force. We know from the National Long Term Care Survey that as a result of improvements in health care, active life expectancy in the United States has been increasing. In 1982, 74 percent of those aged 65 and older were healthy. By 2004, that had gone up to 81 percent. Projections for 2014 are between 84 and 85 percent.
Q.
That’s been happening anyway, even without a health care overhaul.
A.
Yes, but by providing access to care for the uninsured, additional millions of people will also reach the Medicare eligibility age healthier than they do now. People will be more active at a later age and able to remain in the work force longer. That’s important, because the people who form the bulk of the labor force — the so-called prime-age workers — are 25 to 54 years of age. But given the low birth rate in this country, more people are now turning 55 than 25. The group of prime-age workers isn’t increasing at all. We’ll have to turn to those aged 55 and older to make up the difference.
Q.
But people 55 and older are getting laid off now, because they’re relatively expensive.
A.
They’re also skilled. Once the economy kicks in again and businesses need the labor force to grow, you will have to find workers someplace. Without an expanding work force, our ability to achieve the 3.2 percent annual growth in G.D.P. assumed in the federal recovery plans will be virtually impossible.
Q.
How do you know these people will want to remain in the work force?
A.
It’s already happening. More people over 55 and 65 are still working, motivated by a reduction in their personal savings as well as by an awareness of the amount of money required for a long retirement. In 1998, there were 4.1 million people over 65 in the work force. Between 1998 and 2008, an additional 2 million joined, so that by 2008 there were 6.1 million workers over 65, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2008, workers over 65 years of age contributed $45 billion to the Treasury in income taxes.
Q.
So that’s where the revenue you’re projecting comes from — income taxes?

A.
We can project the number of those over 65 who will be able to work in the future as a result of improved health, stemming from health care reform and advances in medicine. We can also estimate the numbers who will actually remain in the work force, based on historic participation rates. It then becomes straightforward to calculate the annual income taxes that workers over 65 will pay into the Treasury at today’s tax rates in constant 2008 dollars.
Q.
And how much do you calculate that will be?
A.
We project that by 2020, there will be an additional 8.5 million workers over 65. And by 2030, an additional 16.8 million. That’s the lowest of three projected participation rates. We’re being conservative. The increased tax revenues would add $312 billion to the U.S. Treasury in 2020 alone and $927 billion in 2030.
In addition, if you’re a full-time worker, you’re not in Medicare. Your employer is providing your primary insurance, so there are savings there as well.
Q.
This implies that the Senate HELP Committee bill, with projected costs of $1.15 trillion over 10 years, would actually be the most cost-effective plan, because it would insure the most people.
A.
Yes, it would, absolutely. You have enormous complications in health from people not going to see a doctor when they need one and ending up with far more costly problems later in life as a result. By the way, when you say the HELP bill will cost about $1.15 trillion over ten years, that’s only $115 billion a year on average. We’re projecting $312 billion in revenue for 2020 alone, and that’s at the lowest participation rate, so revenues are way in excess of cost.
Q.
What’s the second part of the theory?
A.
The second part comes from Medicare savings. By providing the uninsured access to health care, millions of people will reach the Medicare eligibility age healthier than they do now, spending fewer Medicare dollars.
Q.
But there will be more of them, which will increase overall costs.
A.
That’s not what we’ve seen so far. From 1994 to 2002, Medicare Part A and Part B went down from 2.45 percent of G.D.P. to 2.40 percent, as the population has grown healthier. Only Medicare Part C and Part D, which were introduced in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, have gone up. Part C is the private Medicare Advantage program, which was a total giveaway by the Bush administration to private insurance companies. It allowed them to take over part of the Medicare population and charge them money to run a program. Part D, the prescription drug benefit, is also increasing, because more people are enrolling.
Q.
Even if you take Parts C and D out of the equation, haven’t Medicare costs been increasing in raw numbers?
A.
So have other costs — food, housing, clothes, salaries. You can’t just look at raw numbers. You have to look at it as a percent of G.D.P., which is stable.
Q.
Then why do we keep hearing that Medicare is heading toward insolvency?
A.
Because the Congressional Budget Office and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services don’t consider health improvements in their projections. They calculate the population increase that will occur over a given period and assume that health-care inflation will be 1 percent over regular inflation. Their projections are all over the place. They make a 10-year projection and update it every year, so that by the time the original date is one year away, they’re almost correct.
Q.
How do you know your projections are more reliable?

A.
We looked at C.M.S.’s 10-year projection for 1994 to 2004. They projected costs of $361 billion by 2004, but the actual figure ended up at $268 billion. They were 35 percent wrong. But when we started over and factored in health care improvements, we came out only 5 percent higher than the actual figure. If C.M.S. used health improvements, they would have more accurate projections and the system wouldn’t always be seen as on the verge of bankruptcy.
Q.
So if Medicare Parts A and B decreased in the period you cited from 2.45 percent of G.D.P. to 2.40 percent, how much of a savings is that?
A.
Without improvements in health, Medicare would have cost $91 billion more than it did in 2008. We project that by 2020, the savings will be $242 billion. By 2030, they will be $530 billion.
Q.
If you combine the two factors — the revenue from taxes plus the savings to Medicare — how much is that?
A.
The added plus savings from health care reform adds up to $554 billion in 2020, or $1.457 trillion in 2030. That’s way in excess of what the estimated costs of reform will be.
Q.
You also say there’s a stimulus effect to health reform.

A.
When you’re spending that kind of money to cover millions of new patients, you’re also engaged in economic activity. You’re building hospitals and clinics, employing doctors, nurses and lab technicians, buying CT scanners and M.R.I. machines, purchasing furniture and carpeting. In the short term, that’s money going back into the economy.
Q.
So it works like housing construction does.
A.
There are huge multiplier effects. But the larger benefit is through increased productivity due to increased human capital. In the end, health care reform is revenue-neutral.

 

[klein]

Watched the show 60 minutes today.
Here is a comment from Andy Roonie :

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5419901n&tag=api


and the $60 Billion Dollar fraud on medicare:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5419844n&tag=api

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I watched that show also and was shocked. Call me naive but I did not realize that Medicare/Medicaid fraud was that rampant and that easy to do. $60B!!

 

[moreluck]

Yes, and Obama lets this fraud continue.....

 

[Babagounj]

but when he passes this new health care reform, he had said that is when he will put a stop to all this fraud .

 

[Lue C Fur]

but when he passes this new health care reform, he had said that is when he will put a stop to all this fraud .

And if his bill does not pass then he wont do anything about the fraud.

 

[wkmac]

October 24, 2009, 6:00 am Universal Coverage: A Revenue Windfall?

Interesting read Jones, thanks! Sounds more to me that universal healthcare is about "asset and resource management" than anything else. The asset and resource being the chattle that make up the work force for the corp. state and the revenue stream for the state corp.!



BTW: Should we start rethinking the FDA and what it's true intent is really all about?

 

[wkmac]

OK Republicans, let's hear it loud and clear,

WHAT SAY YE TOO OBAMACARE?

HELL NO!


WHAT SAY YE TOO REPUBLICANCARE?

I guess it's easy to forget the hypocrisy when it's your own!


The myth of small gov't republicanism

American gov't and it's surrounding politics is

 

[Lue C Fur]

Just curious...has there ever been a goverment program that has cost what they said it would (not went over budget) and has not raised taxes?
Also, has the program actually done what they said it would do?

 

[klein]

Just curious...has there ever been a goverment program that has cost what they said it would (not went over budget) and has not raised taxes?
Also, has the program actually done what they said it would do?

Yup, here is 1 example :

EI surplus balloons to $51 billion
(EI is our unemployment Insurance - now renamed Employment Insurance)

The surplus in the employment insurance fund has grown to $51 billion, according to briefing notes done for Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg.
The notes were released under Access to Information, according to published reports on Thursday.

CBC
​

A Human Resources Department spokesperson confirmed that the fund grew by $2.2 billion in the government's 2005-06 fiscal year. That included $800 million in excess premiums and $1.4 billion in interest.
In 2004, the surplus stood at $44 billion.
The Conservatives regularly criticized the Liberals when they were in office over the size of the EI surplus.
However, now that they are in power, the Conservatives have not offered any plans on what they are going to do with the massive surplus.
EI premiums fell on Jan. 1 by seven cents to $1.80 per $100 in insurable earnings. The premiums are now set at a maximum of $720 annually. The employer rate was cut by 10 cents to $2.52 per $100.

Finn Poschmann of the C.D. Howe Institute called the large surplus a "10-year trainwreck" but pointed out that there is no slush fund sitting around waiting to be spent, as successive governments have used the EI surplus to balance their books.
Poschmann said the $51 billion figure dates back to March 2006 and he estimated that the fund has now grown closer to $53 billion thanks to strong employment growth.
"The money is still rolling in," he said.