Health Care Costs Today
Aug. 16th, 2009 02:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rabid1stHere is a link to an article about the cost of health care today.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
In case anyone is wondering, the government, meaning you and I, the taxpayers, pick up the cost of the uninsured even now. We just do so inefficiently and inhumanly. For example, my friend is taking her internship in psychology at a local mental hospital. The hospital built a new ward last year, costing millions, which they got in government grants and loans. They even asked their STAFF to pitch in with donations. Now, they cannot afford to repay their loans...so they will be doing a number of corporate things to get by...1) cutting salaries and laying people off [we taxpayers will pick up the unemployment tab] and yes, those are the same people who donated to build the wing 2) writing the loans off as a tax break for corporations, so we taxpayers [even those who've lost their jobs] pay for their error 3) letting the less dangerous [or uninsured] patients go so they are wandering the streets, asking you for loose change. Some of them will insist that you learn about the aliens that have taken over the Qwiki-Mart. Those poor people are not only going to be cold and hungry and frightened, they will also be frightening you...and causing the police, whom we taxpayers pay, to have extra patrols.
Jails, which we pay for, too, will be full of people who should be getting proper mental care, sociopaths who as of their 18th birthday are no longer covered by child care laws. They will cause costly fights and we will need more room, officers and medical personnel. We also pick up more costs than that, though. Because sick people don't just wander out into the streets and get arrested or die, not right away. So property values decline and people are forced to give more to church kitchens and shelters to compensate for their "tax cuts." Would you stand by and watch a sick person die or would you try to help? Shall we begin to take our elderly, childless neighbors in? Well, even if everyone refuses to help and the sick and the homeless do die...we taxpayers would pay for the Hazardous Waste pick up and disposal. Funerals, even pauper funerals, are not free.
So, this isn't REALLY about government spending. It is about priorities in spending. And there is no excuse for all of this clutch-fisted inhumanity. One of my LJ-friends said she met a lady during a health care town hall who was uninsured and told her "We don't want government insurance. We take care of our own." Yes, but really, she will apply for food stamps, medicaid, social security and church charity when she's sick or homeless. Even if she doesn't we will bankrupt our hospitals taking care of her when she comes in to Emergency, and we will pay higher and higher insurance premiums to compensate. Hospitals and doctors and dentists and drug companies will keep raising their rates to cover costs as more and more people have to get stealth care. Or maybe we will carry on being callous and pass laws that let "take care of our own" woman and her 4 children huddle on a trash heap somewhere until she dies. After all, what is she to you and I...but a tax burden, right? The way things have been going in this debate, maybe we should just admit that our fellow Americans are not "our own." Japan takes care of its own...so does Cuba. Little countries, poor countries and somehow they manage to care for their sick. It's not that we can't afford to; it's that we REFUSE to do so. If we don't manage to pound out a bypartisan bill, then maybe America really is motivated by nothing but self-serving, short-sighted greed. Maybe we are a lost cause when it comes to humane behavior toward our fellow Americans.
Rae
being bitter and stuff.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
In case anyone is wondering, the government, meaning you and I, the taxpayers, pick up the cost of the uninsured even now. We just do so inefficiently and inhumanly. For example, my friend is taking her internship in psychology at a local mental hospital. The hospital built a new ward last year, costing millions, which they got in government grants and loans. They even asked their STAFF to pitch in with donations. Now, they cannot afford to repay their loans...so they will be doing a number of corporate things to get by...1) cutting salaries and laying people off [we taxpayers will pick up the unemployment tab] and yes, those are the same people who donated to build the wing 2) writing the loans off as a tax break for corporations, so we taxpayers [even those who've lost their jobs] pay for their error 3) letting the less dangerous [or uninsured] patients go so they are wandering the streets, asking you for loose change. Some of them will insist that you learn about the aliens that have taken over the Qwiki-Mart. Those poor people are not only going to be cold and hungry and frightened, they will also be frightening you...and causing the police, whom we taxpayers pay, to have extra patrols.
Jails, which we pay for, too, will be full of people who should be getting proper mental care, sociopaths who as of their 18th birthday are no longer covered by child care laws. They will cause costly fights and we will need more room, officers and medical personnel. We also pick up more costs than that, though. Because sick people don't just wander out into the streets and get arrested or die, not right away. So property values decline and people are forced to give more to church kitchens and shelters to compensate for their "tax cuts." Would you stand by and watch a sick person die or would you try to help? Shall we begin to take our elderly, childless neighbors in? Well, even if everyone refuses to help and the sick and the homeless do die...we taxpayers would pay for the Hazardous Waste pick up and disposal. Funerals, even pauper funerals, are not free.
So, this isn't REALLY about government spending. It is about priorities in spending. And there is no excuse for all of this clutch-fisted inhumanity. One of my LJ-friends said she met a lady during a health care town hall who was uninsured and told her "We don't want government insurance. We take care of our own." Yes, but really, she will apply for food stamps, medicaid, social security and church charity when she's sick or homeless. Even if she doesn't we will bankrupt our hospitals taking care of her when she comes in to Emergency, and we will pay higher and higher insurance premiums to compensate. Hospitals and doctors and dentists and drug companies will keep raising their rates to cover costs as more and more people have to get stealth care. Or maybe we will carry on being callous and pass laws that let "take care of our own" woman and her 4 children huddle on a trash heap somewhere until she dies. After all, what is she to you and I...but a tax burden, right? The way things have been going in this debate, maybe we should just admit that our fellow Americans are not "our own." Japan takes care of its own...so does Cuba. Little countries, poor countries and somehow they manage to care for their sick. It's not that we can't afford to; it's that we REFUSE to do so. If we don't manage to pound out a bypartisan bill, then maybe America really is motivated by nothing but self-serving, short-sighted greed. Maybe we are a lost cause when it comes to humane behavior toward our fellow Americans.
Rae
being bitter and stuff.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-08-18 01:33 pm (UTC)To cap executive pay sounds like what you call socialism. Who would be responsible for limiting this pay? The government is the only entity I can think of that has the wherewithall to accomplish this.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-08-19 07:52 am (UTC)The upper echelon in the majority of large. private corporations overpay themselves. This isn't something the government controls when said corporations are private entities.
As for 'willing to pay' that much money -- have you ever worked in, say, fast food? If so, I posit: who works harder? You, dealing with customers who are frequently too stupid to live, employees who think coming to work is optional, and the other myriad joys in between, like food prep, money handling, and 'my kid just spilled the third large drink at our table; can you clean it up?'?
Or is it the guy up top who's likely never worked in fast food and thus thinks that 60 seconds is enough time for a customer to find their wallet/purse/checkbook, argue about the total and/or add something to their order, pay, wait for you to make their order, get their drinks/food/condiments/extra napkins/the nickel you dropped, and get everyone (if there are multiple people) in the car situated.
You, the guy in the actual restaurant, are likely making at or less than a dollar above minimun wage if you aren't an assistant mgr or store manager (who averages between $25,000 - $35,000 a year, I think). The guy who likely seldom goes into the fast food joint is bringing home $5 million a year or more.
Quite franky, I'm not willing to pay that, but I'm not a shareholder, so I don't get a vote. And no, government control isn't the answer I'm thinking. Something along the line of 10% of net profit is more what I'm thinking -- because, in all blunt honesty, it's the peons who do the hardest, grungiest work -- and who get paid the least. Those in the upper echelon certainly deserve good money because they are the ones doing the marketing and whatnot, but what they make as upper management and what I make as the defined 'front line' shouldn't have a descrepency the size of Canada. Government control has no bearing on that.
Health care is much the same way. Anonymous didn't say 'give it all back'. Nor did (s)he say they shouldn't make high salaries. It was simply pointed out that part of the problem with health insurance costs is that we, the consumers, are paying those ridiculously high salaries -- and a little common sense and a lot less greed when setting the companies up would go a long way toward equalizing things.
Final thought: suppose government-controlled health care does happen. Where do you think that money's going to come from, because it sure as hell isn't going to fall off a tree. I mean, let's face it: premiums, actual costs for testing, hospital stays, medication, staffing, research, funding . . . one single entity CANNOT provide everything, which is why things like HMOs first got started. So, which do you choose? Do you pay monthly premiums or full price for prescriptions? Do you truly think government controlled health care will lessen wait times for specialists? Yes, if you're unemployed you will, in theory, have health care -- but you'll also have higher sales tax and probably higher income tax, property tax, etc.
Honest to God last thought: there is no such thing as something for nothing. Government-controlled health care won't lessen any of the costs; they'll just be called something else. You won't be saving money, it just won't come out of the bank quite as fast. Just . . . something to think about.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-08-19 01:48 pm (UTC)ok, here we go... I hope this is coherent- i haven't had enough coffee yet so i make no promises. :)
my thought was that the poster was trying to argue for free market health care and then complained about salaries paid in a free market society to excutives etc. To my mind, this is inconsistent logic. It doesn't matter whether or not I think it justifiable to pay sports people 10 million a year- the market thinks they are worth it and pays accordingly. However, if you're going to argue for controls, why pick excutive salary or sports figures? Who does that benefit, really? Lower prices? better goods? faster service? doubtful. Why not pick health care which is something we all need, anyway? healthy people want to work, they'll produce more, live longer and thereby contribute more. To argue against it in part b/c there are 'bad apples' denies the fact of all systems and societies- there will ALWAYS be 'bad apples'. Seriously, who DOESN"T know somebody who doesn't want to work, etc etc etc. We have no obligation to legislate to these people. Instead, legislate for the majority of people who are, i still think, good people who sometimes need help.
As for paying for health care- we already do. It just isn't an itemized list on the 1040 every year. We pay directly through our taxes for medicaid and medicare, our property taxes which go for local and state hospitals, clinics and doctors who treat uninsured people and etc etc etc. We pay indirectly through lost productivity, higher premiums, etc.
We already have a couple of government run health care systems: medicare and medicaid. While both have fraud issues, so do the privates. Access for Medicare is quite good, to the best of my knowledge. Access to Medicaid would be better if the reimbursement rates were more competitive. I simply don't see a problem with expanding these programs. And no, I have no problem paying more to get everyone covered.
Lastly, I'm not sure i understand what you mean by 'governemnt controlled'. Do you mean like Canada or like Britian? Near as I can tell, neither option is really on the table here.
anywho... must toddle! thanks for you reply!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-08-20 01:46 am (UTC)My main concern with government controlled health care is this: once the government is providing health care for everyone, how long will it take before limits are imposed about how much health care an individual gets based on his 'worth' to the ecomony?
And yes, it is entirely possible for that to happen. Dicatorships don't happen because power is an easy lure to ignore.
And, truthfully, that is all I want to say. Thanks for the debate, though. My brain is now wide awake from the stimulation. Have a great night!