Slog
News & ArtsMonday, July 6, 2009
News Yes We Can...
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:29 AM
...afford universal health insurance. Today's Krugman:
Let me start by pointing out something serious health economists have known all along: on general principles, universal health insurance should be eminently affordable.After all, every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. For example, the French health care system covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as our system.
And even if we didn’t have this international evidence to reassure us, a look at the U.S. numbers makes it clear that insuring the uninsured shouldn’t cost all that much, for two reasons.
First, the uninsured are disproportionately young adults, whose medical costs tend to be relatively low. The big spending is mainly on the elderly, who are already covered by Medicare.
Second, even now the uninsured receive a considerable (though inadequate) amount of “uncompensated” care, whose costs are passed on to the rest of the population. So the net cost of giving the uninsured explicit coverage is substantially less than it might seem.
1
Until America stops pursuing it's military imperium don't hold your breath for universal health care in any form.
2
There are a lot of elements to this discussion, but one key difference is that other countries' citizens have much healthier habits than we do. It's fairly easy to operate a health care system (in a country much smaller than 300 million people, which would be another issue) when most of its citizens can take care of themselves without needing medical care or pills on a regular basis.
4
I think it's probably inevitable that the U.S. will eventually have universal health care. We're just slow, slow, slow when it comes to adapting. I mean, jeebus h. christ... we still haven't adopted the fucking metric system yet.
5
Plus @2, over time mightn't having no-hassle health care available allow a cultural shift for Amurricans to routinely hear from providers we've come to trust, and follow health suggestions with less resistance? What you describe as the current situation seems a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc (if that's the proper Esperanto).
6
@2 - Americans tend to be fat, but it would be much cheaper to control someone's cholesterol and blood pressure levels today than to pay for their life-threatening heart disease later.
In one case, we'd pay the small cost of preventative health care that wouldn't otherwise be received by an uninsured person. In the other case, as Krugman points out, we already pay for "uncompensated" care if an uninsured person has a heart attack and needs hospitalization.
In one case, we'd pay the small cost of preventative health care that wouldn't otherwise be received by an uninsured person. In the other case, as Krugman points out, we already pay for "uncompensated" care if an uninsured person has a heart attack and needs hospitalization.
7
Also, prevention is usually cheaper than treatment. So if people can afford that yearly doctor's appointment, costs go down.
8
sooo typical. GOP lies up and down the media and they accept it -- we can't afford health care reform. Pelosi Hoyer McDermott Cantwell are nowhere to be found. Why aren't they saying we CAN afford it? Why isn't OBama on national TV saying we CAN afford it? No, instead we get a dense Krugman article passed about via the internet and that's what we have to rely on to effect social change. The Democrats get themselves into this fix by trying to cozy up to the blue dogs and the moderate GOPS to get something passed. What might work better would be hit the truth hit it fucking hard and hit it 10000 more times. Health care rallies in fucking Tiger stadium in Baton Rouge LA instead of trying to ooze up to Mary Landrieu and "convince" her to accept some watered down public option. Why not Obama go up to freaking Portland Maine for 3 days and take over the whole state, media wise, with town halls on health care horror stories then go up to Presque Isle Canada with the entire media in tow and show them the Canadian system works, god damn it. He could stop off at Campobello and talk about how EVERY AMERICAN LIFE IS PRECIOUS even a guy in a WHEELCHAIR can make a contribution and so we have a MORAL OBLIGATION TO END THIS BALONEY NOW and get national health care because we are all valuable.
And privately or not so privately -- if Collins and Snowe don't gt on board NOW he's going to recruit, organize and ensure they are fucking out of office because I guarantee you in a tiny state like Maine Obamafervor could do it.
He needs a bit of Damitol + inner LBJ as MSNBC chick said + inner Nelson Mandela, where's the hope, unity and change?? where's the marching, where's the organizing, where's the call to arms, where's the change in politics as we know it?
We are going to get a watered down thing that doesn't really work, much like the stimulus, because he's NOT CHANGING HOW POLITICS WORKS.
More...
And privately or not so privately -- if Collins and Snowe don't gt on board NOW he's going to recruit, organize and ensure they are fucking out of office because I guarantee you in a tiny state like Maine Obamafervor could do it.
He needs a bit of Damitol + inner LBJ as MSNBC chick said + inner Nelson Mandela, where's the hope, unity and change?? where's the marching, where's the organizing, where's the call to arms, where's the change in politics as we know it?
We are going to get a watered down thing that doesn't really work, much like the stimulus, because he's NOT CHANGING HOW POLITICS WORKS.
9
Maybe people would be 1,000,000% in favor of Single Payer if we called it "The War on Healthcare?"
10
Can we afford it?
Sure, if we stop providing corporate welfare to corporations to provide us with private for-profit insurance.
Remember, most jobs are created by small business and they have a hard time providing any health care coverage at all.
Demand single payer national health care - two-thirds of American citizens want it for them and their dependent children!
Sure, if we stop providing corporate welfare to corporations to provide us with private for-profit insurance.
Remember, most jobs are created by small business and they have a hard time providing any health care coverage at all.
Demand single payer national health care - two-thirds of American citizens want it for them and their dependent children!
11
Call WA Senator Maria Cantwell to voice your opinion. She's one of the "moderate" Democrats.
202-224-3441
202-224-3441
12
Seconding 5. The complete lack of preventative health care under our current system is a huge contributor to Americans' health problems. If nobody goes in for regular checkups, they don't receive much health advice. So they go about eating fast food, lazing around, and drinking soda. You'd think that getting fat and winded every time they walk across the room would be a clue, but it really isn't for most people. Plus, getting advice "officially" from a doctor makes people a little more likely to follow it than when it's just a nagging doubt in the back of their mind.
All the rhetoric against UHC is weird and really kindof creepy. It's been proven to be cheaper, more efficient, and more effective. The main reason I always hear, once all their "higher taxes" excuses are refuted, is that they don't want to pay for some other person's health care. People in this country are actually willing to pay more money, and receive less in return, in order to have the knowledge that their dollars are not helping anyone else, either. How sick is that?
It's usually the same machismo-obsessed people who cry out phrases like "nanny state" every time the government does anything to help anyone: foreign aid, welfare, food stamps, health legislation, food regulation, etc. It's like they think it makes them sound rugged and independent when they denounce any form of aid or regulation. I'll never understand how it's supposed to be "rugged and independent" to demand that the entire system be set up to benefit YOU and screw everybody else. I think that such selfishness is the surest sign of a whimpering, coddled pussy, but I apparently that's just my take.
All the rhetoric against UHC is weird and really kindof creepy. It's been proven to be cheaper, more efficient, and more effective. The main reason I always hear, once all their "higher taxes" excuses are refuted, is that they don't want to pay for some other person's health care. People in this country are actually willing to pay more money, and receive less in return, in order to have the knowledge that their dollars are not helping anyone else, either. How sick is that?
It's usually the same machismo-obsessed people who cry out phrases like "nanny state" every time the government does anything to help anyone: foreign aid, welfare, food stamps, health legislation, food regulation, etc. It's like they think it makes them sound rugged and independent when they denounce any form of aid or regulation. I'll never understand how it's supposed to be "rugged and independent" to demand that the entire system be set up to benefit YOU and screw everybody else. I think that such selfishness is the surest sign of a whimpering, coddled pussy, but I apparently that's just my take.
13
@2,
Are you kidding? Europeans use a ton of health care and take a ton of pills, but that's just one reason why they're healthier than we are.
Are you kidding? Europeans use a ton of health care and take a ton of pills, but that's just one reason why they're healthier than we are.
14
I don't see how a proposal that excludes anyone working for companies with fewer than 25 employees can be considered universal health coverage? Is Krugman so out of touch that he doesn't realize that is a huge portion of the population?
15
As I pointed out when I had a virtual spazzing-out meltdown in comments a week or so ago, I think the extreme innumeracy of large swaths of the population is what lets people get away with bullshit claims that public-option or single-payer means huge additional government indebtedness.
Just pick up a fucking calculator: 50 million uninsured x $200/month x 12 months = $120 billion a year for reasonably priced full coverage. Yeah yeah yeah fine tuning, startup costs, missteps, unanticipated consequences, BUT efficiencies of scale, negotiating leverage, better preventive care, blah blah fucking blah.
MAKE NO MISTAKE: All these sound bites against real reform are just scare tactics... that unfortunately will work for 75% of the booboisie.
Just pick up a fucking calculator: 50 million uninsured x $200/month x 12 months = $120 billion a year for reasonably priced full coverage. Yeah yeah yeah fine tuning, startup costs, missteps, unanticipated consequences, BUT efficiencies of scale, negotiating leverage, better preventive care, blah blah fucking blah.
MAKE NO MISTAKE: All these sound bites against real reform are just scare tactics... that unfortunately will work for 75% of the booboisie.
18
re: Yes We Can...
...Run our mouth and tell everyone else what to do but not do it ourself.
Does SLOG provide health care for it's employees, interns and their families?
...Run our mouth and tell everyone else what to do but not do it ourself.
Does SLOG provide health care for it's employees, interns and their families?
21
I wish our fearless leaders were also taking into account the hidden costs of underinsurance. Sick employees take more days off, sick kids miss more school, children of sick parents with no care find themselves playing caregiver, bankruptcy courts are clogged, Social Security Administration is flooded with unnecessary SSDI apps, the list goes on. Why isn't anybody talking about those costs?
22
And all of you who went after #2, while missing the point that it's a very convoluted discussion for both sides, while taking your very one-sided straw man shots at an admittedly incomplete statement... proceeded to miss the most important point of all: The 300 million people part. You have to make sure every single one is insured, in full, and then you have to make public significant portions of an industry that's almost exclusively privately owned.
I didn't even mention the infrastructure cost just to roll something like this out at the scale needed to make it stick.
The Treasury couldn't print enough money to make this work, and the Feds sure as hell don't have it in their coffers, nor could they finance it.
I didn't even mention the infrastructure cost just to roll something like this out at the scale needed to make it stick.
The Treasury couldn't print enough money to make this work, and the Feds sure as hell don't have it in their coffers, nor could they finance it.
23
Addendum: They couldn't make this work the way many of you intend it to work. If the Feds rolled out a UHC plan, it would be at best so partial and incomplete, with so many exceptions, that they may as well have not even bothered.
More than likely, they'll just legally force everyone to purchase insurance of some kind, which means most of us will be paying $80-100 a month for high deductible insurance that covers jack and shit.
More than likely, they'll just legally force everyone to purchase insurance of some kind, which means most of us will be paying $80-100 a month for high deductible insurance that covers jack and shit.
24
22: the total doesn't matter. Under taxation, 300 million potential users are also 300 million potential contributors. If it's economics you're concerned with, then you have to look at the health care system's efficiency, not the country's population. And every study and cross-national comparison has shown that the efficiency of our health care system is pathetic.
How will the US afford single-payer health care? Through taxes. Where will all the tax money come from? Taxpayers (300 million of them). How will taxpayers afford such an increase in taxes? Because that tax increase will be lower than the amount that most insured people are currently paying for their premiums. So by using a system that's proven to be more efficient almost every time, they're actually saving money in the end, AND more people are getting covered. If anything, having a bigger population makes it all that much MORE important to have an efficient system, not a private one.
Look here:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_he…
The US isn't exactly saving a bundle with our current system. Look at all those countries that spend less than we do once you take out-of-pocket expenses as well as government funds into account (and why shouldn't we? Out-of-pocket money is just as real as tax money). Among them are France, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and Norway. What do these countries (and others) have in common? They're known for providing health care to all their citizens. And yet they spend less for that universal coverage than we do for the partial, reluctant "coverage" that our private insurance companies provide. And Japan and Germany, while smaller than the US, aren't exactly desert islands.
If we "can't afford" to pay for an efficient, functional health care system, then how can you believe that we can afford such an inefficient joke of a system as the current one?
More...
How will the US afford single-payer health care? Through taxes. Where will all the tax money come from? Taxpayers (300 million of them). How will taxpayers afford such an increase in taxes? Because that tax increase will be lower than the amount that most insured people are currently paying for their premiums. So by using a system that's proven to be more efficient almost every time, they're actually saving money in the end, AND more people are getting covered. If anything, having a bigger population makes it all that much MORE important to have an efficient system, not a private one.
Look here:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_he…
The US isn't exactly saving a bundle with our current system. Look at all those countries that spend less than we do once you take out-of-pocket expenses as well as government funds into account (and why shouldn't we? Out-of-pocket money is just as real as tax money). Among them are France, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and Norway. What do these countries (and others) have in common? They're known for providing health care to all their citizens. And yet they spend less for that universal coverage than we do for the partial, reluctant "coverage" that our private insurance companies provide. And Japan and Germany, while smaller than the US, aren't exactly desert islands.
If we "can't afford" to pay for an efficient, functional health care system, then how can you believe that we can afford such an inefficient joke of a system as the current one?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS