his policies will crush our society with additional debt.

soakitincider: his policies will crush our society with additional debt.

The $700 billion we just gave to Wall Street fatcats could have funded 10 years of free healthcare for all Americans.

Why would he pick someone who was thrown out on his head by the voters?

bubbaprog:
that policy is also an epic failure; people need to be accountable for their own actions.

TheGreatGazoo: Why would he pick someone who was thrown out on his head by the voters?

Maybe because electability does not equal competence (see our current president)

Hahah. I don't know what the freepers are whining about, but they're whining, so I'm laughing at them. Hahah.

When I think Health Care, Tom Daschle is the first person that comes to my mind. Obvious choice.

TheGreatGazoo: Why would he pick someone who was thrown out on his head by the voters?



At least he lost to living person. So there's that.

Cue Republican sob-fest...now.

soy_bomb: When I think Health Care, Tom Daschle is the first person that comes to my mind. Obvious choice.

Is that sarcasm? (new window)

As a former resident of South Dakota, I am pleased as punch. Daschle is WAY underrated.

I wonder if he's going to make strides to socialize healthcare in the next 8 years. He'll be remembered as a hero for generations if he does.

bubbaprog: soakitincider: his policies will crush our society with additional debt.

The $700 billion we just gave to Wall Street fatcats could have funded 10 years of free healthcare for all Americans.

Then Obama shouldn't have voted for. Or McCain. Or anyone.

Anybody else read the headline and think of this?

I REALLY hope it wasn't just me.

Like it or not, we are getting UHC as a result of this mess. Between the people out of work, and the companies who can't afford to pay for it, it is more salable now than at any other time. We got Soc. Security (and a bunch of other bureaucracies) out of Great Depression I.

There is good to this. Some people (my 56-year-old uncle for one) would quit working tomorrow if health insurance was guaranteed. That means some younger person could get his job. A lot more workers would consider 30 hour/week jobs, too (including me), if it wasn't for the stupidity of employer-based health insurance.

Revamp healthcare? More like "give a huge cash giveaway to the same megacorporations that are already screwing over the common man". Hey kids, here's the facts: insurance doesn't pay for shiat. All they do is rip you off. My policy today costs me $36 a month; my company pays $650 a month for it. So, in total, we're spending about $700 every month to give me coverage. You would think $6,000 per year might be enough to, you know, cover basic costs to go to the doctor, right? You know, you get an ear infection, need to get some antibiotics, something along those lines. Oh, what's that? No siree, you've got a $1000 deductible before they pay anything! And after you hit your $1000 a year, you still are on the hook for 20% of costs!

And Obama wants to give tax money to these companies, too. Fark corporatists, fark health insurance companies, and fark Obama. It's a failed system and he's just working to keep it perpetuated. Give us single payer. Now.


Maybe if I just pretend like I'm going to fix things, people will believe it's true! Now, how to distract them so they don't realize the truth...

Lawnchair: Like it or not, we are getting UHC as a result of this mess.

No, we're not. There's no teeth in Obama's plan. Plenty of people will still go without. If you wanted universal health care, you should have voted for Hillary (buy health insurance or go to jail) or Kucinich (healthcare actually is a right and should not be trusted to private enterprise).

bubbaprog: soakitincider: his policies will crush our society with additional debt.

The $700 billion we just gave to Wall Street fatcats could have funded 10 years of free healthcare for all Americans.

Citation?

I am no math guru, however when we did the last "refund" that was for 650 Billion. All the adults (No kids) got something like 400 to 800 per.

Somehow I think a nationalized healthcare program is going to cost a whole bunch than 600 per person.

bubbaprog: The $700 billion we just gave to Wall Street fatcats could have funded 10 years of free healthcare for all Americans.

Clearly the way out of that bad debt is to incur more debt.

That seems to be your answer for everything.

cartersdad: Somehow I think a nationalized healthcare program is going to cost a whole bunch than 600 per person.

You're right. The 700 billion would have paid for a little less than 1/3 of healthcare for a single year.

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent - two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.2

Shaggy_C: cartersdad: Somehow I think a nationalized healthcare program is going to cost a whole bunch than 600 per person.

You're right. The 700 billion would have paid for a little less than 1/3 of healthcare for a single year.

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent - two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.2

I was right on something? On Fark?

This is a banner day!

highlights from ontheissues:

Tom Daschle on Health Care

* Give everyone the same health plan as Congress has. (Jul 2004)
* Allow more affordable drugs via Canadian imports. (Jan 2004)
* Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
* Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
* Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
* Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
* Voted NO on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
* Voted YES on blocking medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)
* Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (Apr 2001)
* Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
* Increase funding to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic. (Mar 2003)

TheGreatGazoo: Why would he pick someone who was thrown out on his head by the voters?

He lost his 2004 senate election by about 4,500 votes. I don't think that loss should be described in your terms.

morgankingrocks: * Voted YES on blocking medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)



The proposal he voted against would have let workers put money tax free into a savings account to pay down high deductibles. Middle class Americans could have saved thousands of dollars every year if they had been allowed this option. I know I'd be in a much better spot if I'd had this option.

navarone54:
He lost his 2004 senate election by about 4,500 votes. I don't think that loss should be described in your terms.

Not only that, but considering he was being painted by his opposition (including folks in the White House) as an obstructionist, abortion-loving, godless, libjew-commie in the very, very red state of South Dakota (a state who didn't even go blue for McGovern) and people should be more surprised that he didn't lose by more votes.

Shaggy_C: morgankingrocks: * Voted YES on blocking medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)



The proposal he voted against would have let workers put money tax free into a savings account to pay down high deductibles. Middle class Americans could have saved thousands of dollars every year if they had been allowed this option. I know I'd be in a much better spot if I'd had this option.

Don't most employers offer those accounts anyway? I thought we already had this, my mom has one of those accounts...the devil is in the details though, you HAVE to spend everything in the account on medical. Good news is that includes stuff like advil. Aren't those like 'use it or lose it' accounts though?

metroatlrecruiter: Don't most employers offer those accounts anyway? I thought we already had this, my mom has one of those accounts...the devil is in the details though

Actually, I was wrong. It took the Republicans gaining control of congress to actually get this passed; they created the HSA program in 2003, and it does allow rollover from year to year. So, I guess I'm just an idiot for not signing up for it. Still, shame on Daschle for being against it. The debate now is about how to see if premiums could be paid out of the HSA as well.

Shaggy_C: You're right. The 700 billion would have paid for a little less than 1/3 of healthcare for a single year.

In a private-funding only system, yes.

In a single-payer system, costs decrease considerably. Use per-user costs for a single-payer system and multiply it across the United States population, and you'll see what I mean.

Shaggy_C: Actually, I was wrong. It took the Republicans gaining control of congress to actually get this passed; they created the HSA program in 2003, and it does allow rollover from year to year.

Yeah, the 1996 bill actually passed. But it was a crap bill.

"The law created what Congress called a demonstration project on MSAs, restricting the number of accounts and refusing eligibility to anyone except those without health insurance, self-employed individuals and small employers with 2 to 50 employees."

bubbaprog: In a private-funding only system, yes.

In a single-payer system, costs decrease considerably.

I cannot imagine that profit margin and administrative costs account for over 60% of healthcare costs in this country.

fosborb: Yeah, the 1996 bill actually passed. But it was a crap bill.

Not necessarily - it sounds to me like they needed a study group to convince Dems to go along with the plan; it lasted until 2000, at which point they deemed it enough of a success to implement a broader law in 2003.

Change.


LOL

Shaggy_C: I cannot imagine that profit margin and administrative costs account for over 60% of healthcare costs in this country.

Compare it to the costs in other countries with socialized medicine. You'll be surprised.

Yes, but it is pretty much unprecedented for the Senate Majority Leader to be voted out. You basically have to hate your state to vote that way, even if you don't agree with the person.

And if Bush didn't get voted out, why did Daschle?

It's been one of the few WTH moments I've had with Obama's team.

Shaggy_C: cartersdad: Somehow I think a nationalized healthcare program is going to cost a whole bunch than 600 per person.

You're right. The 700 billion would have paid for a little less than 1/3 of healthcare for a single year.

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent - two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.2

A gigantic part of that is that the costs we pay, and while the reasons are debatable, we pay more than any other nation in the world in healthcare, and get way subpar care. Myself, the only person with an actual plan that looked at the problem right was kucinich, but he was a little man with a hot wife that couldn't get any support...

/Anything is better than what we have though
//good luck mr. Daschle
///Healthcare professional, deal with this crap EVERY single day.
\\\Yay for slashies!

Shaggy_C: Lawnchair: Like it or not, we are getting UHC as a result of this mess.

No, we're not. There's no teeth in Obama's plan. Plenty of people will still go without. If you wanted universal health care, you should have voted for Hillary (buy health insurance or go to jail) or Kucinich (healthcare actually is a right and should not be trusted to private enterprise).

I think UHC will come, "do it for Ted(Kennedy)!"
oi vey

Mercutio74: Compare it to the costs in other countries with socialized medicine. You'll be surprised.

We have a couple of estimates of how high administrative costs are - i.e., expenses incurred by the health care system to do things other than to provide health care services. One prominent study that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 estimated that the cost of administering the US's health care system was about $300bn in 1999. A more recent study in the International Journal of Health Services found that in 2003, administration costs in the US health care system ate up about $400bn, or about 25% of total health care spending.

So we can cut about 25% off of that 2.3 trillion dollar number. That's some serious money, but not so much that the $700 billion could pay for healthcare for '10 years'. It would still be a huge part of the federal budget if we were put into place.

Shaggy_C: I cannot imagine that profit margin and administrative costs account for over 60% of healthcare costs in this country.

i can. i work in the health care administration industry, working for a company that exists for no other reason than to be a middle man in the process. we handle and process claims, payments, reporting, stuff like that.

we're a fortune 500 company.

Alucard1191: Myself, the only person with an actual plan that looked at the problem right was kucinich, but he was a little man with a hot wife that couldn't get any support...

Agree totally. But that makes you and I 'Fark Independents^TM' because we aren't 100% committed to the Obama plan. I think the left could be doing a lot more to make this guy actually deliver on some of his promises instead of using us to get into office then governing from a center-right (read 'corporatist sellout') position.

metroatlrecruiter: Shaggy_C: morgankingrocks: * Voted YES on blocking medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)



The proposal he voted against would have let workers put money tax free into a savings account to pay down high deductibles. Middle class Americans could have saved thousands of dollars every year if they had been allowed this option. I know I'd be in a much better spot if I'd had this option.

Don't most employers offer those accounts anyway? I thought we already had this, my mom has one of those accounts...the devil is in the details though, you HAVE to spend everything in the account on medical. Good news is that includes stuff like advil. Aren't those like 'use it or lose it' accounts though?

My medical savings account, when I had a job that offered one, was use it or lose it. My husband's current account is the same way. I would love to see any surplus in a medical savings account roll over from year to year.

But the other part of the account is that it reduces your taxable income for the year by taking directly from your paycheck and going toward medical expenses. If the money rolled over, I bet it would be taxed.

Shaggy_C: So we can cut about 25% off of that 2.3 trillion dollar number. That's some serious money, but not so much that the $700 billion could pay for healthcare for '10 years'. It would still be a huge part of the federal budget if we were put into place.

Though in a socialized system services and pharmaceuticals are generally cheaper as well.

Mercutio74: Though in a socialized system services and pharmaceuticals are generally cheaper as well.

Due to bulk purchases, right? Part of what we pay for here is the innovation, so I'm not too sure what the total discount would be compared to current state. Basically, we subsidize the rest of the world's R&D due to their stringent price controls.

this thread doesn't have enough charts

Lawnchair: There is good to this. Some people (my 56-year-old uncle for one) would quit working tomorrow if health insurance was guaranteed. That means some younger person could get his job. A lot more workers would consider 30 hour/week jobs, too (including me), if it wasn't for the stupidity of employer-based health insurance.

Great, so let's see, your uncle quits working, thus no longer paying income tax. You, and "a lot of workers" cut back to part time, again, reducing income taxes. And you think that somehow lower income revenue and an unbelievably high health care cost is going to work well.

One thing nobody has reasonably explained yet is how it's going to work to provide more to everyone, at higher standards, yet cost less. The idea that it being "single-payer" making it cheaper is ludicrous. This is going to be a government agency, not notably well known for it's ability to do anything "cheaper".

I fully expect that we'll see something, I also expect that it won't cover everyone, will cover a lot of people poorly, and will provide crap service. Simply look at the VA for a good example of how your government run health care system is going to look. As someone who was a "beneficiary" of government health care for 30 years, I pity anybody who has to resort to the low standards and poor service that is typical of it. Yeah, it'd be great if we all had the health care program that Congress gets, but if anyone thinks that is going to happen, or is even in the realm of possibility, they're too dumb to be breathing in the first place.

TheGreatGazoo: Yes, but it is pretty much unprecedented for the Senate Majority Leader to be voted out. You basically have to hate your state to vote that way, even if you don't agree with the person.

And if Bush didn't get voted out, why did Daschle?

It's been one of the few WTH moments I've had with Obama's team.

Most of his loss was for the reasons I just stated (maybe minus the libjew commie part). Democrats don't get elected in SD by running on platforms about gay marriage, being pro-choice, and (esp. at the time) being anti-war. When your opponent and members of the White House are portraying you as exactly that kind of representative (though mostly an obstructionist), you've got an uphill battle. It wasn't a pretty campaign.

Shaggy_C: Alucard1191: Myself, the only person with an actual plan that looked at the problem right was kucinich, but he was a little man with a hot wife that couldn't get any support...

Agree totally. But that makes you and I 'Fark IndependentsTM' because we aren't 100% committed to the Obama plan. I think the left could be doing a lot more to make this guy actually deliver on some of his promises instead of using us to get into office then governing from a center-right (read 'corporatist sellout') position.

I must say that a few of his cabinet picks, mainly hillary as sec of state, (Richardson would have been the better choice, if you want hillary somewhere put her in interior or something) do not jive with me very well. But some of his others, (Energy, VA affairs, etc.) I am completely fine with.

I'm going to give him the chance, I voted for him, and I volunteered for him, and I know he can't fix it all, it took us 30 years of failed economic and healthcare policy to reach this point, my only hope is that Obama is smart enough to see that "Right or Center right" (which is really all we have in this country) are not the only ways to govern. He has the charisma, the sense of urgency, and people in congress, I would really like to see him make some more drastic changes, ESPECIALLY in healthcare. A system, that in my opinion, needs to be completely dismantled. starting with HMOs.

Them telling me what I can and can not work on my clients, (Carpal tunnel is the perfect example, insurance only covers from the elbow down, though it comes from the neck) and while PPOs are better, ideally we need an entirely new system, one that is based in prevention and efficiency, and individuality. These are not mutually exclusive at all, but in out current system, we can't do much else.

It is a shame that certain issues, like our own health, get placed as unimportant when compared to things like wallstreet bailouts, military spending, and the like. Our priorities are all screwed up in this country, and I think that even if we get nothing else from Obama, if he can just point the country in the right direction and let us walk ourselves out of this hole that we're in, life will get a lot better for everyone.

But yeah, I'm hoping for the best, expecting the worse, I guess.

/Sorry, long rant.

Milkbeer: Wow, change we can believe in. How ya'll liking that change so far demonrats?

I'm really sorry McCain lost. My condolences. I know it's hard for you to pick up the pieces of your shattered life.

Milkbeer: Wow, change we can believe in. How ya'll liking that change so far demonrats?

Liking it a lot so far, thanks for asking.

Shaggy_C: Due to bulk purchases, right? Part of what we pay for here is the innovation, so I'm not too sure what the total discount would be compared to current state. Basically, we subsidize the rest of the world's R&D due to their stringent price controls.

Kind of ironic that the country that hosts these large companies is also getting hosed by them, no?

Wraithbane: One thing nobody has reasonably explained yet is how it's going to work to provide more to everyone, at higher standards, yet cost less. The idea that it being "single-payer" making it cheaper is ludicrous. This is going to be a government agency, not notably well known for it's ability to do anything "cheaper".

Every single-payer system on the planet is far, far cheaper.

The insurance company model has also failed, completely and utterly, to contain costs. You've noticed this much, I hope. Therefore, if you don't want single-payer, you'd better suggest a third solution. Better yet, should have suggested it in the last decade. Because paying 5% of our entire nation's GDP to health insurance administration overhead... the system to deny payments alone... is crippling our competitiveness.

And, no, the 'quality' is not going to be as good. Sorry bout that. We can not afford the bloated at-all-costs system we have now. The 'quality' of our system (as measured in dollars and machines that go 'ping') is far overrated for the amount of actual health it provides.