Torinus: Unleash the Market on Health Care
I tend to disagree with Torinus on most things, but he’s dead on with this column.
When I challenged David Riemer, the architect of the pending bill for a Wisconsin single-payer system for health care, that his concept was Swiss cheese, more holes than solutions, he challenged me for my plan.
Therein lies the problem.
Policy wonks like David - and he is one of the best and brightest - look for sweeping solutions. That usually means top-down, one-size-fits-all mandates, a bias toward big government and, inevitably, horribly higher taxes.
Save me from grand schemes.
Most important reforms start small. That’s how welfare reform started - incubated in a couple of counties in Wisconsin. That’s how the parental choice initiative for schools got started - hatched in a few Milwaukee schools.
My plan is marketplace. Turn it loose. Health care needs a discipline that only the market can provide.
I wonder if he can point to any examples of market forces providing affordable, widely-available health care to all the citizens of a country or a state. I can’t think of any.
I can, however, think of numerous examples of “sweeping solutions,” whose “horribly increased” taxes amount to a lower dollar amount than we currently pay, which do just that.
Why is this obvious lesson such an anathema to you? I maintain that your objection to it is a purely ideological one, having no practical basis at all.
Posted by scott on August 05, 2007 at 1201 hrs
I think what Torinus was trying to say is that complaining about council appointments is so fourth-grade, but that council appointments of their favorites is so fifth-grade, and therefore so more ma-choor.
As for the column you quote, Torinus says, “First, the government should mandate transparency on prices and quality.” Ah, so he doesn’t mind abandoning the free market now and then.
See In Effect’s analysis of Torinus’s health care message. I think he has interesting points to make.
I think I’ll just repeat some of my commentary about Torinus’s recent claims about the wonderfulness of the health care plan offered to perhaps just a fraction of the employees at KI:
KI’s web site says they have 3,000 employees. Torinus says there’s only 1,429 in the plan. Yes, they’re spread among several factory locations. Several plans and circumstances at different sites, with different financial pictures? Only 47% were offered the plan, or only 47% took it, or only 47% in the plan he wants to talk about? That’s what “well-regarded” means? I welcome clarification.
I don’t like the smoke-and-mirrors that could be happening in so many of these comparisons that say “but my private company’s health care costs $1,000 less than your company’s, and $4,000 less than the state’s Cadillac plan.”
It’s like they’re suggesting that the market is so inefficient or opaque, that the price of corporate packages is so hard to research and discover, that company A can’t get the same health care package as company B. Or that if company A has 10 employees and company B has 10,000, that health care won’t cost less in bulk. Or that if one package costs less than another, that there isn’t a reason it is different - like that it offers less services or some deductibles are higher. If you are suggesting they’re the “same”, and the price is different, then the services probably aren’t the “same”. It’s as if they’re suggesting that their company discovered the magic beans of low-priced health care, but they can’t tell anyone else the name of the company they bought it from.
If I told you I could buy a fleet of new cars every year with each costing $4,000 cheaper than you could ever find, you’d be suspicious. You’d think, they mustn’t be new, he must be bragging, there’s got to be a trick or an angle, like that they arrive painted purple, or they’re without tires or air conditioning.
Posted by John Foust on August 05, 2007 at 1252 hrs
Health crisis in Wisconsin? Where? You an always tell when the lefties are out, they have an ideological bent to socialize the country, like the European Union where there is a constant state of tepid growth. They have 50% or more taxation on everyone.
The only health crisis in Wisconsin is the fact that our medical system is supplying more new procedures, saving peoples lives, than they can do without increasing costs. Most of the drugs we use have been discovered in the last ten years. Look at the advances in heart care, eye care, GI problems, cancer, etc. After working in the system for 50 years I can only tell you that the changes are incredible. How many people are still alive today cause of those advances? Do you wish to stop those advances?
Will a government run healthcare system do that? No one really knows the costs? Look at the cost predictions for Medicare, Medicaid, they are always going broke. What happens when they go broke? Higher prices or rationing. Choose which. Any of these so called experts that believe those predicted costs are real should never buy real estate.
When someone claims that something is in crisis everyone else needs to open their eyes. what is their agenda? Go to the hospitals, clinics, nursing homes on a daily basis as I have. Are there people piled in the aisles, are people deprived of care, are they dying in the streets? No, anyone with half a brain can get good health care in this country. Go to the hospitals, claim that you are indigent and you will get care, good care. Medicaid and Medicare provide care the envy of all of the socialist countries in the world.
Some people wil say that we are paying for that, coure we are, but we will in any system cause there are just a certain amount of people in this country that will never work and pay into the system
Who are the people that are not insured in this state? At present there are either 5 or 6%, depending on who you believe. Many of them chose not to have coverage cause they have the money to pass it up. Many of them have major medical plans and just pay their bills themselves. If I had done that for my family over the years the savings would be over 500,000 dollars. Substantial. Some are in religions that do not beleive in modern healthcare.
Quite a few arr just itinerante men who work from time to time, exist in a small room on peanuts and enjoy life. They drift from place to place occasionally seeking jobs but never overworking.
Why is everyone so concerned that we change everyone to a universal government administered program? It will go out for bids. What happens to the organizations that do not get the bid? They will shrivel on the vine and the next time bids are up there will not be any competition. Prices will rise dramatically.
If some people did not have enough food, would we adopt a program to provide everyone with food or just those who need it? The same with transportation, housing etc.
No, people are hollering crisis even though there is not any evidence that we have a crisis. We have problems, but we do not need to do something really stupid.
Maybe we could hire the Milwaukee County Pension board to run it. Or the MMSD board, or the DNR board or the Wisconsin Center Board. All of these board run programs have been doing so well.
Study after study has shown that Wisonsin has the best health care, best hospitals in the country. Why change that. JCHAO checked our hospials, they all passed, most European hospitals do not. When I was in Russia, their socialized medicine produces hospitals and drugs that are from 50 years ago. My daughter is an MD in Canada as is her husband. Why are MD’s from there leaving for the US. Why are MD’s in Massachusetts leaving there? Why are they coming here. Why do many Canadians buy healthcare insurance for the US? Why has the court decisions to allow private healthcare in Canada bring about a stampede for private insurance there?
Beware the Chicken Littles of the left and their wild ideas. Listen to people like John Torinus who actually has done what he talks about and well.
I am on Medicare now so I do not really have to worry about this monster that the left wants, but I can see all of the problems and I do not think that society should exchange those problems for the problems that we have now of superior care and freedom of the market place. As Churchill said: ” democracy is the worst possible system that could e created, but it stillis better than all of the rest.” Under the proposed sustem, democracy will go out with the wind and an oligarchy will descend into a new “iron curtain”.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1259 hrs
47 million Americans without health insurance isn’t a crisis? The fact that Wisconsin’s health care costs are among the highest in the nation isn’t a crisis? The fact that Americans pay double for their health care compared to other western nations isn’t a crisis? And that’s just the low-hanging fruit. I’ll not even get into the stickier issues of private insurers denying valid claims which ruins people’s health and sometimes even kills them. I’ll not even get into the fact that we’re all terrified to change jobs, start a business or retrain for a new career - because our families will lose health insurance. I won’t even get into the major American CEOs who are pointing at this (nonexistent) crisis and telling us rather pointedly that we shall soon be unable to compete globally unless we do something about it.
Posted by scott on August 05, 2007 at 1314 hrs
Scared to change jobs? Who? Fifty years ago people went to work at one company and stayed there for a lifetime, as my Dad did with Sears, unless they got fired or quit. Now Americans change jobs every few years and they have Cobra to help them. I think that the average American now changes jobs over 10 times in a lifetime. Sure are scared aren’t they.
About 15% of our society does not have full insurance, but many of those are either wealthy and do not get it, choose not to have insruance or just have major medical.
I realize that most of you socialists want to completely control everyone’s lives, but this is America and if you choose not to invest in a full healthcare program, and invest the money instead, you should be able to do so.
Let’s get into those that demand healthcare so thay they can compete. Do you not think that they will have to pay into the system anyway and then they will not be able to control their expenses as the government will be deciding who pays and how much. I note that the businesses in Wisconsin are not for this plan except for some liberal companies.
We can easily cut our expenses in half for health care. Eliminate the big spending union demands that are costing $20,000 per year and adopt the Torinus program.
The alternative is to adopt a governement, inefficiently run program like Canadas and then ration healthcare. Your choice.
Any companies that deny valid claims should be sued and then dropped next year. That is the free market.
Any of you that are scared to death of life should just move home and let Mommy protect you.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1405 hrs
I think that the average American now changes jobs over 10 times in a lifetime. Sure are scared aren’t they.
An interesting point. The fact that our economy is such that people change careers several times does not, however, disprove my point. I think it is self-evident that people with chronic health conditions are deeply concerned about changing jobs due to the pre-existing condition clauses on so many policies today. COBRA allows (heh) people to continue their health coverage if they leave their job, but the premiums are usually too high for many people to actually take advantage of it.
bout 15% of our society does not have full insurance, but many of those are either wealthy and do not get it, choose not to have insruance or just have major medical.
Can you show me where this data comes from? And doesn’t “choose not to have insurance” just mean that the premiums are so high that they’re tempted to gamble on staying healthy? And aren’t people who have “major medical” counted as insured?
Posted by scott on August 05, 2007 at 1416 hrs
There were sevral very good studies done on this point in the Clinton adminstration. JJ has refound them and sent them to Torinus.
You can probably google them up somewhere. They were very good, I read them several years ago and have remembered the salient points.
Don’t have them at the tip of my fingers but they were made and were quite revealing.
When I was in my 20’s I chose to have a pharmacists program that was one with big deductibles and many people do the same. They are very cheap. when I decided to retire earyt I bought a plan with a big deductible for a year with a big max. I think that I paid only $2500 for it in 1994.
You don’t have to buy COBRA, you can buy a bridge policy cheaply. Why should all of society change their healthcare for the few that run into these problems.? If the people are destitute they can get Medicaid or claim indigency.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1455 hrs
the few that run into these problems?
I guess you’re referring to the aforementioned one in six Americans.
If the people are destitute they can get Medicaid or claim indigency.
I guess you’re unaware that there exists a large gap between those who can pay for their own health insurance and the level of income one must be at to qualify for Badgercare or Medicaid. Someone very close to me, in fact, absolutely cannot afford private insurance for their family of four, but does not seem to qualify for any government insurance. This person works two part-time jobs and is a student. This person has three dependents.
Posted by scott on August 05, 2007 at 1504 hrs
Cobra? Have you ever had to resort to Cobra? Apparently just another theory, at least to you.
My guess is what this world needs is a truly libertairan right-wing utopia, in your mind.
Which makes me question your MIND. Afterall, it’s a THEORY.
Get it?
Also, aren’t you at all concerned that all those babies that lack health care from poor mommies? They could grow up to be Einstein? Or Ayn Rand? You never know.
Oops! Some of my friend at the Eagle Forum do not feel that Ayn Rand was suficiently feminine. BAD EXAMPLE!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1508 hrs
Cobra! It’s horrible, it’s up to the employers letting go employees as to whether they can get Cobra, and it is not an answer at all, especially not for people reliant on daily medications—people who will end up in ERs, with all of us paying for them, if they miss those medications. And for some of them, if they miss medications, the complications cause them to lose drivers’ licenses, so they can’t get to work (since they live where we also lack mass transit).
Yes, Dohnal, in the real world, we have people in our families who have not been able to change jobs because of health insurance. So much for the free market, if people are not free to move around the marketplace to better employment. That is a market that is freeing only for employers, not workers.
And yes, we have people who have had to leave school at 25, close to graduation, because they lose insurance coverage under their parents. And yes, we tried those “bridge policies,” and they’re not what you say they were, decades ago—so we could not try that again with a child who needs medications.
In a state below the national norm in college graduates, when we are told that more college graduates is crucial to growing our economy . . . Cobra and “bridge policies” are your answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1620 hrs
I live in the real world every day in the pharmacy. I have been a clinical consultant in the nursing homes for 40 years and I have seen the messes caused by govrnment healthcare in those places.
And a lot of these things that you talk about are true, but in most cases they can easily be solved by the person if they spent some time looking for solutions.
Yes, I have been on Cobra several times when my hours went under 30 per week so that I know what that is all about. I also rent to some of those poor mothers that you are talking about and they have a plethora of programs to use for those problems.
Students have always had policies available to them, I remeber paying for mine at UW Any student that left school at 25 cause of health insurance would have to be in the idiot class. He could easily borrow the money to pay for a major medical.
You mean that someone that has been in school for 4-6 years and expended $20-30,000 was too dumb to finish school cause he would not pay 2-3,000 dollars a year for a major medical or even better, get a fulltime job and finish up part time? They must be really dummies like the state senator that was trying to get our sympathy.
What you don’t realize is that you are destroying your own argument by pulling out these problems affecting probably 2-3% of the population. You don’t make bad laws for a few bad circumumstances just as the statement that bad cases in court make bad laws.
You pass some enabling legisltaoon that allows these people to purchase polices, get a loan for the insurance rather than gum up the whole system for everybody.
You keep the market system in the mix so that people can make their own decisions instead of the government dictating one size fits all programs.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1639 hrs
rather than gum up the whole system for everybody.
You make it sound as if our precious system was serving everyone well but for a few whose stupidity is their largest block toward receiving adequate health insurance. I maintain that it is serving nobody well. Even those of us who have coverage and whose claims are not denied, are paying far more than anyone else in the world for that care.
All I hear from you folks is a) minimize the gigantic problems we have, b) blame those without insurance for their lack of coverage, c) overstate the problems that others have, and d) rigidly adhere to your “government can never be the best solution to any problem” ideology, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that, in this case, it clearly is.
You claim that market forces can solve the problems of cost and availability, even though it has shown no signs of doing so to date. And you can’t point to a single example of another government anywhere in the world where this has been tried successfully. Not one.
Posted by scott on August 05, 2007 at 1847 hrs
What study do you have to back that up. By far most people are very happy with their plans, that is why there isn’t any great push by the public to adopt this plan and why Hillarycare went down in flames. Rememer dems lost 54 seats in Congress and several senators.
We have the best system in the world, that’s why people come here for care. when was the lst time you heard of people going to Europe and Canada for care. They come here for anything unique. what perecentage of people going to Mayo clinic are from overseas? Do you know of any clinics over seas that have that type of rep?
We have interesting phenomena in India. They have great MD’s and do not have fully socialzed medicine so that many people are going there for very expensive operations. They have incredilbe spas for hospitals and do quite well. We should hire them. My doctor is Indian, she is brilliant but they do not like socialized medicine.
and stupidity is probably the biggest reason that we have holes in th system. that is why we have problems in child health. Many minorites simply do not take very good care of themselves while pregant. if you look at studies you will find the great majority in this country follow MD’s orders very well but a minority do not. they are stupid as a lot of people are that simply do not function well at anyhting in society and rpobably willnot change much no matter what system that we have.
Have you ever heard of cocaine babies, lots of alcoholic babies and on and on. go to the nursing homes, look at charts see how many peole in their 40’s and 50’s that are completly wasted from drug abuse, HIV, alcohlism etc.
Check with St. Joes and St. Lukes find out what their surveys say about how the patinets felt about their treatments. Very good .
You keep bangiing away with the democrat/liberals talking points but you do not have any facts to back you up, just opinions. Most of your opinions could be torn apart by a junior high debate team.
It is not by accident that we were rated number one in healthcare and number one in hosptials and yes that will cost more money. Many of the best teatmens that we have ar not available anywhere else in the world, that is why when I travel overseas I buy NRA health insurance to f;y me home as quick as possible. 90 &#xof; the world has substandard healthcare, most of Asia, all of Africa, most of South America.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1909 hrs
most people are very happy with their plans
I would guess that a lot of supposition goes into a question like that. Not having a plan? The plan you had two years ago with another employer? Not having a plan at all? What about Medicare, Medicaid and VA participants? I suppose they’re counted as happy, too? I suspect that if Americans knew what health insurance and health care looked like in Canada, France and the UK, they’d not count themselves happy at all.
We have the best system in the world, that’s why people come here for care.
What we have here is great health care for the very rich when they’re very sick. That’s why they’re the only people who come here. Meanwhile we’re going to Mexico and Canada to buy our prescription drugs.
Most of your opinions could be torn apart by a junior high debate team.
Then perhaps you should consult one. You’re not doing so well here on your own.
we were rated number one in healthcare and number one in hosptials
Can you explain what you’re referring to?
Posted by scott on August 05, 2007 at 1917 hrs
“Who are the people that are not insured in this state? At present there are either 5 or 6%, depending on who you believe. Many of them chose not to have coverage cause they have the money to pass it up.”
Dohnal is a stark raving idiot. What about the people who develop medical conditions which make them uninsurable, Dohnal? Take the guy who develops rheumatoid arthiritis and needs $1400 worth of Enbrel (i.e. four injections) per month? As long as he stays employed—and covered by the employer’s group plan which is not individually underwritten—so far, so good.
But if his job is terminated and he can’t get another job where health benefits are provided, he is screwed, as no insurer which has a choice NOT to take him will take him, at any price.
You can let forth with your litany about the “intinerante men who eat peanuts” (yes, he typed such drivel!) all you want, or talk about personal responsibility until you are blue in the face, but there is no free market solution for this situation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1933 hrs
Very few people go to Mexico or Canada for drugs, way less that 1%. They have some drugs that are cheaper, but all generics are cheaper here. Walgreens buys more drugs than all of Canada. At walMart and other stores you can buy a months supply of many generics for $4, you won’t find that in Canada.
In Canada you have to pay for your drugs, they are not free cause the governmet negotiates prices for some categories like ace Inhibitors etc. but if the negotiations do not include the drugs that you use then you are screwed. It is well known that many people get side effects from some drugs but not others.
Healthcare for the very rich, that’s nuts. The average person with an average health care plan will get topflight care, as good as anyone, here. The very rich do better in Canada cause they buy health insurance for the US and won’t have to wait six months in line for heart procedures.. In Russia the top commies got much better healthcare while the rest got the same healthcare we had in the 50’s. Same with most other countries in the world.
Google up JCHAO or write them a letter and ask them how they rated European hospital and medical care facilites. Substandard.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1942 hrs
I dispense Enbrel every week on insurance. How many people use this drug? Less than .001%. You want to change everyoe’s coverage for those few people? No, you try to figure out how to help those people.
But, the government and insurance companies have screwed up the prescripton business more than everything else. When everyone paid cash for their prescriptons they were relatively cheap. when the gpovnerment and insurance companies started to pay the drug companies raised prices consistently.
If we get a government run program and you do not agree with their polices you will not have any choice. If we have private programs you can switch next time it comes up for review. The companies will review the plans before they present them to you.
if costs escalate rapidlyabove estimates the one payer program will either have to ration care or raise taxes. In private care if the price becomes too high you can switch to a less expensive plan, buy a major medical as Torinus suggests, have an HSA or just go naked and pay your own bills.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 1955 hrs
Not that I want to start another 1,000 word flood from Bag o Wind Bob, but no matter how you slice it the current system is making individuals go broke and the rest of the country go broke.
Let’s put aside the plight of the uninsured for a moment. It is the insured that have a lot to worry about.
Many people have what they consider to be full coverage until they discover that a charge—often a major one—is denied. Over half the bankruptcies in this country are from medical bills. Why do you think the insurance companies pay hordes of workers to find ways to prevent payouts on claims. That’s how you keep the profit in our for profit health care system. Whym this wonderful system keeps legions of people employed in clinics so they can be sure the wrestle payments out their patient’s insurance companies.
And if someone leaves or loses a job, there is good chance a pre-existing condition, not being a hobo like Bob wants you to think—will keep you off of insurance.
What kind of a country are we when we mix the fear of a medical crisis in with the other fear of making themselves and their families go broke? Oh yeah, we have Christian values.
But Bob doesn’t care so long as we maintain the staus quo, and prevent the goverenment from setting up—not running as he so often lies to you—what might be a system better than this ones governments done have around the world.
We have to idiots to keep this up. But hey, it feels good to Bob so let’s all join in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 2154 hrs
It is always so entertaining to read the insights of the left. Start out with insults and cheap shots, forget about logic.
Do you thonkthat this new insurance is going to cover everything? Do you really believe that all of these things will be covered and costs will not skyrocket?
How many bankruptices last year in Wisconsin? If half were cause of medical then how much was that. I am not sure but I beleive there weer less than 5,000 bankruptices last year, then half would be about 2500. You want to change the lives of 5.5 million people for 2500. Lots of them becuse people refused to properly buy major medical and took bankruptcy as an out.
It is so much fun to debate liberals. First thing they do is make themselves look foolish and then they destroy their credibility.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 2227 hrs
Do you really believe that all of these things will be covered and costs will not
skyrocket?Yes. I invite you to investigate the systems of a few dozen other countries with comprehensive medical insurance. All of them cost less than our system. Every single one.
You want to change the lives of 5.5 million people for 2500.
You are under the impression that the chief problem we are trying to overcome is the problem of the uninsured. That problem exists, yes, and it’s a major one. But the problems are deeper than that. Even the insured are getting screwed.
Lots of them becuse people refused to properly buy major medical and took bankruptcy as an out.
Those crafty, crafty uninsured freeloaders! Taking advantage of our liberal bankruptcy laws just so they don’t have to pay their insurance premiums…
Posted by scott on August 05, 2007 at 2233 hrs
First, our medical care is superior to any of them. Second, the dollar weakness makes a big difference. for instance, Europe is stillpaying the equivalent of $5 per barrel while we are paying over $70.
Tell me which countries medical care you would prefer and then see how many people from the USA and around the world journeys there for care.
Anyone that really believes that the government that is at war in the world, runs huge deficits, operates the post office and numerous other messes deserves to have that kind of care.
The public spoke quite firmly when they threw out 54 democrats from congress in 1994 because of Hillarycare. Move to one of those states, Massachusetts would be great. MD’s are fleeing there in droves making it tough to get doctors..
there wer slightly over 6,000 bankruptices in wisconsin last year, didn’t say how many were caused by medical. google bankrupsty, maybe you can find out. I have never seen that higi of a number, but it is irrelevant except for those people. No one changes the law for 5.5 million people based on what happens to a small percentage.Good night Mrs. Calabash wherever you are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2007 at 2246 hrs
our medical care is superior to any of them.
You keep saying things like this but I don’t know what “superior” is supposed to mean here, nor do I understand what evidence you are supposedly trying to show to support this claim.
the dollar weakness makes a big difference. for instance, Europe is stillpaying the equivalent of $5 per barrel while we are paying over $70.
Could you clarify what the heck it is that you’re talking about? The cost comparisons I’m making with other countries and how much they pay for health care per capita are in US dollars. Please explain what your above point has to do with this.
MD’s are fleeing there in droves
If you’re trying to suggest that national health insurance causes a dearth of doctors per capita, try again; that’s totally wrong.
slightly over 6,000 bankruptices in wisconsin last year, didn’t say how many were caused by medical.
I heard it was around half. And I’d be willing to bet you that the majority of these people had insurance and thought they were safe from such catastrophes. That’s why people have insurance, after all.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2007 at 0829 hrs
A few points.
1. The studies Scott links to in earlier threads show the most substantial reason for higher US health care costs to be our higher GNP. We choose to spend more money on health care, and we get more health care, especially end of life care. If your goal is to change how much we spend on health care that will only happen if you forbid people to spend their money on health care.
2. The units used to measure the cost of our health care are misleading in that they don’t use exchange rates and thus do overstate what the US pays in health care costs to an unknown degree.
3. The studies purporting to show the bankruptcies caused by health care costs have taken a beating in recent months as it has been shown that they included any bankruptcies that included $1,000 of medical costs over a two year period, thus greatly exagerrating the impact of medical costs on bankruptcies.
There are things wrong with the way we deliver health care. We need to have some rational discussion and give people a choice, whcich is the American way of doing things. That is what the author of the original article proposes, and the fact that people are objecting that anyone even try a solution other than their own pet project is disturbing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 0918 hrs
Typing error. Should read $45 pr barrel. When costs per country are compared you need to take into consideration the cost of the dollar.
When the value of the dollar goes down then it appears that we are paying far more thanother countries. It alos is apparent that we have far better care. When was the last drug discovered in another country that we use today. Where are all of the advances in medicine coming from? Not Spain or Italy I assure you.
If people have a good major medical they wil lnot go bankrupt cause you will be covered. If it is for something that is an experimental treatment you will have a tough time.
As for the numbers of bankruptcies that are caused by emidcal I have not seen a study lately. It might be a large percentage but most likely a very small number. Though obviously a big thing to them.
That still is not reason to wipe out the present system.
Superior is superior. Every accrediting operation in the world gives us the best marks. Wisconsin is always a leader. WE have some exceptional operations in the state and care is easy to get and quickly. When was the last time you heard of people dying cause they had to wait for care? They do in Canada.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 0921 hrs
“Superior is superior. Every accrediting operation in the world gives us the best marks.”
You confuse technology with access. WHO ranks us somewhere around Costa Rica and just above Cuba. Yeah, great cars, but how many of us own a Lexis’?
Oh forget it about it. You’ll be too slow to catch the analogy.
The statistics on bankruptcy come from Elizabeth Warrens at Harvard. And you can bet that for everyone who declares bankruptcy there is a multiplier of people who are just on the verge.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 0941 hrs
A few questions for the supporters of this Healthy Wisconsin Plan, in no particular order ...
Under this single payer system that you all support, but supposedly gives us the ‘freedom to choose’ which doctors we want to without impacting quality or supply of care ...
1. Is it safe for me to assume that the reimbursement rate for a given procedure will be the same, regardless of who is providing the service and where it is being performed? In other words ... If I need my tonsils removed, will the state reimburse a doctor in Rhinelander who performs tonsilectomies the same as one in Milwaukee that does? If not, how will the state determine the reimbursement rates on a per provider or per region basis?
2. Will all doctors in the state be required to provide services to Wisconsin residents?
3. Will Wisconsin residents have the choice of choosing doctors outside the state of wisconsin for care? Could I go to the Mayo Clinic for a tonsilectomy if I wanted to and have it reimbursed through Healthy Wisconsin and not be required to incur out of pocket expense to make up the differnce between what the Mayo charges and Wisconsin pays? If so, how will Wisconsin resolve how to reimburse out of state providers for these services? You certainly can’t mandate that they accept Wisconsin’s payment as payment in full, should there be a difference between what the provider charges and Wisconsin pays.
4. Will Wisconsin residents be allowed to purchase private insurance should they choose to, and use that instead of Healthy Wisconsin? If so, would a Wisconsin Provider be legally able to opt out of Healthy Wisconsin and see only private insurance patients instead?
5. Will health care providers be required to provide non-emergency medical care to anyone that shows up at thier office so long as they claim to be a citizen of the Wisconsin? Or will they have to have a State issued ID card of some sort to recieve the care?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 0942 hrs
The US medical cost is 2.2 trillion dollars per year or averages over $7,000 for each man, woman and child in Amercia.
What do we get;
1. Prescription drugs cause 700,000+ emergency room visits annually.
2. The three leading causes of death in America:
a. Heart disease
b. Cancer
c. Doctors and their drugsSource: Journal of the American Medical Association 10/18/06; 296(15): 1858-1866
This is the results of the unregulated free market monopoly system we currently have. We would just get more of the same with the Torinius and Republican plan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1305 hrs
So?
Where is this unregulated health care free market you speak of?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1311 hrs
BBB - qualify your question and what you meant by so. It appears obnoxious when you may not be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1318 hrs
What I keep marveling at is this.
Our chief problems are: a) millions of uninsured, b) cost
Dozens of other nations a) insure everyone and b) pay far less than we do
Thus, according to conservatives, the idea that we should adopt a system like theirs is… TOTALLY LUDICROUS!
It would be one thing for you guys to say “yeah, I get how strong of an argument it is that we have these specific problems and others seem to have solved those problems, but here’s what I think might work better,” but what we get from a lot of you is that it’s totally insane to even want to do this. Furthermore, we get both minimizations about how serious our problems are, and flat denials of the fact that others seem to have solved them.
Your arguments might be more persuasive if you first stopped to acknowledge the rather compelling reasons our side has to be looking at these kinds of solutions rather than just inexplicably denying their obvious appeal.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2007 at 1321 hrs
Everyone dies of something, so?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1322 hrs
BBB - so you’re just being obnoxious. I’ll repost and wait for an intelligent response.
The US medical cost is 2.2 trillion dollars per year or averages over $7,000 for each man, woman and child in Amercia.
What do we get;
1. Prescription drugs cause 700,000+ emergency room visits annually.
2. The three leading causes of death in America:
a. Heart disease
b. Cancer
c. Doctors and their drugs
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association 10/18/06; 296(15): 1858-1866This is the results of the unregulated free market monopoly system we currently have. We would just get more of the same with the Torinius and Republican plan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1328 hrs
anaonymous, let me see if I understand this, your complaint is that the leading causes of death in this country are two items that have a large genetic component and a large behavioral component (things that medicine can’t cure) and medicine itself. What higher endorsement of our medical system could there be?
Scott, we have one health care problem: treating people’s health problems. How we go about doing that is a matter of debate
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1337 hrs
Scott, we have one health care problem: treating people’s health problems. How we go about doing that is a matter of debate
That is an extremely lame dodge. I want to know why you think my desire to adopt a system like everyone else has is so outrageous, given the fact that they seem to have solved our two main health care problems. I want to know why it seems so eminently reasonable to you to go even further away from these solutions instead of embracing them?
Stop lecturing everyone about market forces and your hatred of the federal government and give a cogent response to these facts:
Our chief problems are: a) millions of uninsured, b) outrageous cost
Dozens of other nations a) insure everyone and b) pay far less than we do
Posted by scott on August 06, 2007 at 1343 hrs
It’s unreasonable Scott for at least seven reasons.
1. You have yet to demonstrate that any country pays less for our level of health care, much less half. I believe we pay more, but we also get more. You have yet to demonstrate even once that other people get what we get.
2. You ignore very real problems with other countries health care systems. The USA consistently outranks other nations in cure rates for a vast range of diseases, even with our substantial minority groups and the effects of our unmatched demographic diversity.
3. You ignore studies you yourself have linked to that refute the idea that we will pay less without rationing our health care. We pay more in large part because we choose to. We choose to cover things to an extent that other countries do not, namely end of life care. Unless you prevent people from undertaking these choices, we will still pay more.
4. You ignore the fact that the studies that show we pay “twice” what other countries pay do so in part by refusing to use currency exchange rates in their analysis, thus overstating their case.
5. You attribute to the US government a competency that it has never demonstrated in anything.
6. Your contempt for personal choice, and for allowing people to choose something as important as their own health care goes against my personal belief in the basic liberties on which this country was conceived.
7. You have not refuted the very real concerns people have with medical and pharmaceutical innovations and the effects such a system would have on them. We lead the world in innovative medical techniques, innovative medical machinery, and new drugs. Those are not coincidences, and those are not things that come free.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1410 hrs
Your points 1 and 3 seem to be getting at the same thing: that their lower costs are due to rationing that we ourselves aren’t experiencing. You also charge that I myself have linked to sources indicating that this is so. I don’t know what you’re talking about. In fact, I have repeatedly linked to a study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health that says just the opposite:
“We can’t blame the United States’ higher health care costs on limiting procedures in other countries…”
The USA consistently outranks other nations in cure rates for a vast range of diseases
Source?
the studies that show we pay “twice” what other countries pay do so in part by refusing to use currency exchange rates in their analysis
I have no idea what you’re talking about. When I see studies which indicate all number values are in US Dollars, how is that not valid? Explain. And please provide your adjusted values for what we and other countries pay per capita for health care.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2007 at 1428 hrs
BBB - you are being deliberately evasive and dishonest in your responses. I repost again.
The US medical cost is 2.2 trillion dollars per year or averages over $7,000 for each man, woman and child in Amercia.
What do we get;
1. Prescription drugs cause 700,000+ emergency room visits annually.
2. The three leading causes of death in America:
a. Heart disease
b. Cancer
c. Doctors and their drugs
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association 10/18/06; 296(15): 1858-1866This is the results of the unregulated free market monopoly system we currently have. We would just get more of the same with the Torinius and Republican plan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1443 hrs
Anonymous, have you a point?
Scott, lots of those studies you have linked to specifically refer to GNP as being the single biggest factor in why we pay more. Further, they also specifically state that other countries have established limits on how much they will pay, and that those limits are substantially below ours.
For cure rates, go the WHO, www.who.int. The only major item on which the US is traditionally topped is in prenatal and neonatal care, and this is based in part on the inconsistent standard of reporting across countries, and is also closely tied to our high birth rate among minorities and the resulting health care issues.
As to “dollars”, take a close look at studies that show health care costs. They invariably do not convert costs into dollars directly using exchange rates. Instead, they base the value of the dollar on a hypothetic basket of goods and what it costs in various countries. Some problems with this approach are: 1) that the items in the basket are representative, 2) that the items in the basket are equal, 3) that the processes of importing and taxation are reflected in these costs of the items (they’re not) and 4) that people value the goods in the basket equally (there is evidence they do not). The effect of this assumption is to exaggerate our health care costs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1503 hrs
they also specifically state that other countries have established limits on how much they will pay, and that those limits are substantially below ours.
Uh, yeah. And…? I for one would love to see the negotiating power of every American taxpayer. I guess that’s how come everyone else pays so much less for the same things, like drugs.
Linking me to the front door of the World Health Organization isn’t exactly the supporting evidence I was asking for :\
As to “dollars”, take a close look at studies that show health care costs.
I have no idea what you’re saying here. Does anyone else?
Posted by scott on August 06, 2007 at 1615 hrs
Scott, once again, you can’t provide any evidence that other countries are buying the same thing that we are, and thus you are comparing apples to oranges.
As to “dollars”, few health care studies convert foreign currency into dollars for the purpose of comparison, instead they use a PPP dollar which is the relative cost of certain goods in certain countries. For virtually all of Western Europe, this understates their health care costs relative to ours. Go to the WHO and have a look around. I’m sure you’ll be disappointed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1635 hrs
Yeah…there’s some technical explanation of what BVBB is saying here and here.
The point is, essentially, they aren’t converting the relative cost of health care honestly. Say you make the exchange rate between dollars and lindar (some currency which I just made up) 2 lindars per dollar. Now say, hypothetically that the exchange rate works, insofar that an engineer in Houston makes $60,000 and an engineer in Lindarland makes 120,000 lindars. So far so good…but what if a new car (same car) costs $20,000 in the US but 65,000 lindar? Or, to make it salient, an open heart surgery may cost $50,000 but 150,000 lindar! Meanwhile, bread may cost $2 a loaf while the Lindese engineer pays but 2 lindar. Which exchange rate do you use then?
Another example would be a comparison between an American’s average annual expenditure on gasoline and that of an Iranian citizen. The point being that sometimes currency exchanges don’t tell the whole story for any given commodity in a market.
I’ll couch this healthcare thing a different way. Its fairly truthful today to say that people need to consume energy to survive—whether thats gasoline, coal, or heating oil. We don’t, however, pay into a national energy fund to buy an energy protection plan for ourselves should the cost of oil skyrocket and gas jump to $6 a barrel.
Why, then, do we need this government watershed protection for healthcare? Especially considering that healthcare (not health insurance, but actual dollars spent to stay healthy) is a relatively insignificant expenditure in the average person’s life until they hit a disease that without treatment is fatal? I read somewhere once (can’t cite it, sorry) that most of a person’s accumulated wealth, something on the order of 75%, is spent in their last 10 years of life trying to stave off death.
As someone smarter than me once wrote, the mortality rate eventually is 100%. Living longer is a luxury that we must be willing to pay for…hence why American health care costs more money per person. We spend money on luxuries more than anyone else in the world.
PS Nationalizing anything is a bad idea; just because it seems like something you “need” to have doesn’t make it ok to hand over to the government. I don’t want the feds making my cars, my house, or my clothes—why would I want them in charge of my surgery or drugs? Government jobs are for the slack-jawed.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 06, 2007 at 1648 hrs
I think it’s a bunch of “technical” bullshit that’s diverting us from the fact - which nobody here has denied - that these other places are paying less for their care than we are.
If you honestly believe that they’re getting less than half the care (or less than half the quality?) and that this makes up for the difference, i’ll have some of what you’re smoking.
If you honestly believe that the difference is made up in some bullshit technical blather about exchange rates, I think you need to double up on your meds.
But you’re really nuts if you think I am going to fall for either of these notions. I’m trying to have a discussion here, but I know damned well when I’m getting bamboozled and distracted. I’d like to see you get on TV for 30 seconds and explain to ma and pa America that they’re not really exactly paying double what everyone else pays because dollars aren’t really dollars. Good luck with that. They won’t buy it and I’m not buying it either.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2007 at 1800 hrs
Ah yes, the ultimate argument: “I don’t understand exchange rates, therfore they don’t exist.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 1921 hrs
Apparently the darned fools at John’s Hopkins failed to see the relevancy if it, too. Go figure.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2007 at 1943 hrs
Scott, just got home from the pharmacy and missed all of this good debate. It seems that people can discuss things on the net without calling everyone else names. Those that do indulge in that usually wreck their own arguments.
As to the costs of drugs worldwide. Several years ago the drug companies were severely criticized cause prices on new drugs were so high cause of the research costs,. particularly HIV, an incredibly difficult disease. Infection rates are killing millions in Africa.
The drug companies responded by gauging the price of the new drugs to GNP so that the people in poor countries were able to get their hands on some of these drugs. One problem is that once people feel better, like in TB or HIV they stop taking the drugs leaving a more virulent form of the virus to spread. That causes more probelms.
Then, after the drugs were priced down, Americans crabbed about not getting those prices. Fact is that the US, Japan and Europe are paying for most of the costs of drug development and the poor countries are getting things at cost.
Now, we have the generic drugs. At Walgreens, next year, 75% of the prescriptions sold are generic drugs. Walgreens, Wal-Mart buy more generics than all of Canada. Our prices are the lowest.
it is easy to guage who has the best healthcre in the world. where does everyone go, if they can, and where does no one go? USA and now India.
How many MRIs are done in the other countries, the other newest technologies? Folk medicine is not very expensive.
If you are enamored with lower costs, tell us which lower cost country you to go to? Who is discovering all of the new drugs, new treatments? We are.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 2012 hrs
Dohnal is a Pharmacist and a clinical consultant!!!!
Now it all makes sense!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 2037 hrs
I don’t know if this will add anything here, but this is my point. I was told by several actuaries that if health insurance continues to increase at the same rate inless than 15 years it will over take our economy. So, you can debate generic vs. name brand or US vs Europe, but the end result is that we as a nation will go broke or at least be in a very sad state of affairs if something is not done.
Would someone please get Dohnal a spell check?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 2042 hrs
Same actuaries compute that all of our tax money, in 15 years, will go to public employees salaries, benefits and pensions.
One thing that pushes our costs up is the gold plated health plans that public employees and others have.
When everything is covered there are few market forces to hold down costs. Some of these plans cost upwards of 20,000 dollars per year.
Insurance is supposed to be something that you use to protect yourself from disaster, not to pay for every little cold, hemrhoid and wart. When people overinsure, usage goes up and costs go up.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 2101 hrs
Fortunately the darned fools at the WHO see fit to print raw exchange rate data if anyone cares to look, which would let a curious person see that nations with a high GNP and a high GNP growth rate have experienced rates of health care spending, and rates of increase in health care spending, very similar to the USA, and independent of the method of health care delivery and payment. But then why let curiousity get in the way of dogma?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 2107 hrs
It seems that people can discuss things on the net without calling everyone else names.
Then I must be among the best debaters around these parts. It just so happens that today I’m not in the mood to be nitpicked by liars.
where does everyone go, if they can, and where does no one go?
You mean where do the extremely wealthy go? They come here because our “system” caters to those with big piles of cash. The rest of us get screwed. That’s what your market forces have wrought.
How many MRIs are done in the other countries, the other newest technologies? Folk medicine is not very expensive.
Dismissing the medical care in Europe, Canada and much of Asia as “folk medicine” devoid of technologies like MRis may be the single most idiotic thing I’ve heard here yet. And that’s saying a lot.
Same actuaries compute that all of our tax money, in 15 years, will go to public employees salaries, benefits and pensions.
Bullshit.
Some of these plans cost upwards of 20,000 dollars per year.
Bullshit.
When people overinsure, usage goes up and costs go up.
When you make health care essentially free (or at least already paid for), you encourage people to see a doctor early and regularly. This is not a problem, it’s a solution. When people get early, regular and preventative care it costs less.
the darned fools at the WHO see fit to print raw exchange rate data if anyone cares to look
I think you should give us a direct link to whatever you’re blathering about instead of linking us to the WHO index page, smart guy. If you’ve got a point to make, make it. it’s not good debate practice to ask the other guys to do your own research.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2007 at 2118 hrs
Scott, you blather on endlessly about costs for which you provide no data and no links. When you provide data and links you get mad when they don’t say what you think they do.
Pick a health care study, any one. You will see they use PPP dollars. Take the time to find out what a PPP dollar is. Then look at what happens when you use straight exchange rates for currency instead of the PPP dollar. You’ll find out that places like Luxembourg and Switzerland have similar health care costs, and similar rates of increase in health care costs as the USA. You will also find out that they magically have comparable GNP per capita to the USA, and that they have experienced economic growth similar to the USA.
Think for yourself for a change instead of simply repeating what you have been told. There is no magical cure for health care costs unless you want to lower our GNP, and somehow I suspect that won’t be happening anytime soon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 2211 hrs
There is no magical cure for health care costs unless you want to lower our GNP, and somehow I suspect that won’t be happening anytime soon.
Is this supposed to be a lucid post/comments?
There is a difference between rational and rationale.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 2356 hrs
Who is discovering all of the new drugs, new treatments? We are.
“We” is who? Has the pharmaceuticakl industry been nationalized?
Take a breath Donhal, and maybe buy a scoecard.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 0002 hrs
Scott, whenever you do not have the knowledge or cannot make a logical argument you just blowoff. You lose debate points doing that.
First, folk medicine, herbal usage for drugs, is more widely used than our system. I have had a book, five inches high, of the herbal usage in Germany and the studies conducted there. In France they have homeopathic doctors and meds. They are used by the whole population.
China and most of the orient uses folk medicine and extensive use of herbals. Africa the same. I have been in pharmacies in over 30 countries and they look considerably different than ours.
So, you cannot make direct comparisons about costs when all of the third world is in a whole different classification.
Europe and Canada are much closer to our systems but JCHAO rates their hospitals as poor compared to ours, they do not pass their tests.
I’m sure that the Canadians and othesr from across the wrold that come here for medicine, some are also going to India, have lots of cash. But with our insurance policies, at present, anyone that has them, which is 93% in this state gets the same treatment. What will happen if we adopt your plan and go way over budget, breaking the bank, like we have consistently done with Medicare and Medicad? Rationing? Emergency tax increases? Turning down treatments?
You keep saying that under the proposed new plan that you will never be turned down, that everyone will get everything they need. Under those conditions costs will skyrocket.
The HMO’s long ago disproved the theory that if everyone goes to the doctor at the least sign of a cold or problem that costs will go down. That is the theory that they were founded upon; “Health Maintinence Organizations”. They still have low enough copays so that people do not lose much from going to MD.
Under your statement people should go in regulary and that this will make their health better. Go in once a year yes, every month, No. They have found out that things work just as well if people go in for specific things when they have a problem.
My minimum HMO plan cost over $14,000 per year, the better plans are already over $20,000 and most employee, teacher plans are over $20,000.
I am medicare age but my wife is not, I will go on that next year, it is a bargain but will be broke in a few years.
Since most governmental costs, like education, spend 70% or more for salaries, benefits, pensions and vacations, they will just have to go up 30% to wipe out all of the taxes that we pay. Unless taxes go up dramatically all tax money will just go to the employees with no money left for anything else. Study the Milwaukee county problem.
People that overinsure, for complete payment on everything, cost the system a lot. This shows up when we compare our costs to other countries. All of the billing costs can dramatically be reduced by allowing the market to work. It is happening in the drug industry.
Many new drugs are very expensive and some of the older drugs can be used at much lower costs.
The pharmacy (drug stores) industry was ruined by the entrance of the insuurance companies and the government. Prescriptions were actually so cheap in 1964 that they were not added to Medicare. Then, when a third party started paying prices skyrocketed as the average person would not pay those prices. They were unconcerned about what the insurance companies paid.
Now the insurance companies are adopting formularies, prior auths, lower copays for generics and other things to restore market forces to prescriptions. It is working and if we don’t have market forces at work prices will really skyrocket, that’s why the Torinus plan is far beter than all of the others.
Finally, the three arguments that everyone are making for the adoption of this disaster. 1. Cost less: look at the records of all govnermenal programs. Costs were way underestimated. Medicare is broke, Medicaid costs have spiraled. the only way to hold down costs is price controls, elimination of services or the market place. Which do you choose?
2. Everyone is not covered. You can work out some programs for the small percentage of people that are not covered and there are already lots of them.
Look at history, the siren songs of the “Great Society”, the ‘new frontier”, all of these programs have been busts. why? the govnerment does few things right, the only thing really is taking money from one person and giving it to someone else. We have spent trillions on poverty programs and there still is not any change.
Look at North Ave. in Milwaukee, it is in worse shape now then when I came to Milwaukee in 1964 despite all of the money spent, but then history has proved that liberals are great on talk, big on spending, but low on accomplishment.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1005 hrs
I couldn’t help but notice that none of the supporters of Healthy Wisconsin answered any of my questions. I wonder why that is?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1222 hrs
I have to ask… Why do people try to debate with Scott?
It’s obvious he is fixated and no other argument you can make, without taking him to the future to show him the actual outcome of such a decision, will sway his unrelenting illusion of a socialist state and utopia if only we would have the government run everything.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1223 hrs
Debate with Scott? It gives us more chances to point out obvious facts and him to prove the old axiom; “better to have people think that you are a fool then open your mouth——”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1232 hrs
I wrote a lengthy and thoughtful response to comment 54, but I lost it
Posted by scott on August 07, 2007 at 1358 hrs
Well, I believe the “lengthy” part.
Posted by Owen on August 07, 2007 at 1402 hrs
Changing the way we deliver health care is not a two paragraph debate except for those who are only interested in ideology.
If you wish to leave a good system behind for the next generations then this needs to be dicsused for a year so that everyone knows what might happen.
We need a competent newspare and their reporters to do a good job of explaining what the plan is. their pathetic attempts to date area laughable.
Finally, when everybody is debating this mess remember the two people in this state most responsbile for the loss of the state senate, Dale Schultz and Kevin Gilkes.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1715 hrs
Following up on htat Dohnal ... The fact that no supporter has even attempted to answer my earlier questions in post number 26 leads me to believe that either these types of details haven’t really been considered by the proponents, they don’t have any idea whats in the plan, or they know they understand that honest answers will begin to reveal the administrative nightmares such a program would introduce, as well as the practical limitations to ‘choice’ that would arise, even if in ‘theory’ they don’t exist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1743 hrs
I would like to see answers too. The press seems incapable of answering them, maybe we can get WPRI to answer them. I cannot. They are very good questions.
We need to do a lot more questioning.
I think some people do not believe tht this could happen so that they are holding back.
I would like some really sharp people to analyze the costs. If we do not deny anything, do not have formularies, generic copays, preferred drugs the prices will go out the roof.
Canada does not provide prescription coverage in their plan.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1815 hrs
Those questions are just the tip of the iceberg. You raise excellent points relative to prescription drug reimbursement as well. I also think you are right about the fact that people don’t really think its going to happen ... and I’m one of them. I also think the proponents know it isn’t going to happen, so they just keep regurgitating the standard cliches about a Government administered single payer system without knowing, or caring, about specifics of the Healthy Wisconsin Plan, so they can demagouge the Health Care Issue, claim they have a plan (which they really don’t) and get the siccophant media and editorial boards to write headlines between now and next November about how Republicans killed universal health coverage for all Wisconsinites. The only way to expose this is to make them provide specifics about the plan ... which it appears, at least on this forum they can not,or are unwilling to do.
I will ask again. If this is such a great plan ... And the Democrat party really believes this is the answer to solving what they believe to be the problems with Health Care delivery in Wisconsin instead of it just being a cheap political ploy, why didn’t Jim Doyle propose it in his budget? And does anyone REALLY think Doyle would sign it, if passed? Funny ... no one chose to answer those questions when I posed them earlier either. Its because everyone, including the most ardent supporters on this board knows it won’t get out of the conference committee ... they knew that before they included it ... and they just want to use it as a political football instead of as a serious plan to address the issues they disingenously claim it will now while the budget is being negotiated.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1916 hrs
They can’t answer the questions cause they don’t know what is in all of it, neither do I. What about illegal immigrants, are they also covered?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 2333 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134056
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:20 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:24 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).