|
 |
12/18/2009
Health care IS NOT FREE. Will the left ever figure that out?
These people are on a different planet. I was astounded by a piece in OpenLeft, complaining about Americans having to buy their own health insurance. And with their own money, no less! I kid you not.
I said it the other day, and I feel the need to repeat it: the public does not yet understand that the government is about to order people to buy health insurance, with their own money. Yes, the government is about to order people to cough up hundreds of dollars a month each.
And then this guy goes on to say
… the current health care reform bill orders everyone to buy very expensive insurance from the big corporations, with no public option and no Medicare buy-in. Even if you are in the income range where you receive subsidies you have to pay "only" 9 or 10% of your income, at a time when people are runnng up credit cards just to get by as it is. That is with the subsidies. Above that level you pay more.
Health care IS NOT FREE. Who do they think is going to pay for it?
And then there’s Howard Dean, complaining that I’m not supporting seniors enough.
Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage.
Being old is a pre-existing condition? And charging seniors three times as much as a 20-year old is discrimination? What? I’m not taking time to look up the actuarials on that, but the 70 and over population must average health care costs that are about 20 times greater than the costs for a 20-year old - ?? So a premium three times as much is discrimination? What?
No wonder we can’t pass health care. Why am I subsidizing someone who is 90 years old? Why is my daughter subsidizing me? Geez.
Repeat after me: Health care IS NOT FREE!
Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net
COMMENTS
Jo,
I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph.
"No wonder we can’t pass health care. Why am I subsidizing someone who is 90 years old? Why is my daughter subsidizing me?"
Would you clarify please?
dave allen (Fri Dec 18 06:34:26 2009)
This is not a "left versus right" issue. It's always a "state versus you" issue.
Bush and the GOP expanded drug welfare to older Americans (statistically the wealthiest cohort) which added $18 Trillion (with a "T") to our unfunded future debt. SCHIP was a creation of the GOP Congress in 1997. How many years has the GOP had to unwind these abuses and feigned impotence?
The state has been screwing up health care for 65 years. The Democrats' solution is more spending and power for the State; when the GOP is in a position to actually *fix* things, their solution is more power for the State and more spending. We have to see through this manipulation.
Health care is service; it should be freely bought and sold without let or hindrance by the government or political parties.
Brian Heyer (Fri Dec 18 08:13:56 2009)
Of course health care is not free, but why are you so willing to see the insurance industry add 30% ($700B per year) to the cost of health care without ever laying hands on the patient? Are you independently wealthy?
I'd rather see those dollars spent on the doctors and nurses and hospitals needed to extend coverage to the 45 million uninsured and 50 million under-insured Americans. But then again, I'm a crazy lefty.
Granted, YOU may be well fixed, but 50,000 Americans die each year because they lack health care... some of them Vets, some are children whose mothers could not afford pre-natal care, some are cancer patients who couldn't afford to get checked out earlier. Or is that "compassionate conservatism?"
You really should educate yourself on the Medicare-for-all system the insurance industry has paid $46 million to keep "off the table." For the same amount of dollars we are spending today (16.5% of GDP) we could provide first-class Cheney-care to 100% of our population. Including those in BadgerCare and Medicaid, and those who are uninsured and under-insured.
We’d pay for the system through our national infrastructure... about 2% on individual taxes and 8% on companies (as opposed to the 15% they pay today). Businesses could spend the savings on keeping jobs in the US instead of outsourcing to countries already with universal healthcare. A bailout for 100% of our businesses, not just the banks and car manufacturers.
Jack Lohman (Fri Dec 18 08:28:25 2009)
Yes Brian, I agree. You've detailed the argument well. State vs. us. And us vs. Jack.
Jo (Fri Dec 18 08:37:57 2009)
Yea, Jo, and remember that the 50,000 Americans that die each year equals *15* 9/11's. But as long as it isn't one of your or my loved ones, who cares? Is that what this country stands for?
Jack Lohman (Fri Dec 18 09:08:19 2009)
Jack is the only person in this thread who speaks with good, thoughtful, common sense. Maybe that's because he has carefully studied and analyzed the issue, and thinks rather than reacts. He's not alone. I got your back, Jack.
http://clydewinter.wordpress.com/category/health-care-crisis/
clyde (Fri Dec 18 09:24:12 2009)
Well Dave, if a policy for a senior can't cost any more than 3 times the cost of an insurance policy for a 20-year-old, actuarialy, the 20-year-old is doing more than his/her share of heavy lifting. I recall that the current legislation specifies no greater than a 6x multiplier for any given level of coverage - but have not double-checked that. Yes, the system is meant to spread the risk and to find a way to fairly cover those with pre-existing conditions. But how much can you switch the burden from the healthy to the less healthy? How much should my daughter, paying a health insurance premium for a 33-year old, subsidize my premium, that understandably, because I'm older, will be substantially higher?
Part of this is actually a moot point, because the elderly don't buy full health coverage. Their health care of course, is primarily paid for by Medicare - by working stiffs of the world. The point is, who is going to pay for all this health care? Yes, subsidies are necessary for lower incomes. Yes. But let's acknowledge that.we all must pay - and substantially - for our health care. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Jo (Fri Dec 18 09:47:15 2009)
Where does the 50,000 figure come from? Obama I believe. He also said there were 47 million uninsured. That was false!
I still maintain we cannot blame the insurance industry who has a 2.2% profit margin.
They raise their prices based on the cost of medical care. Doctors fees, diagnostic fees, hospital fees (just went up to near $1,000 a day), MRI's for thousands, Ct.Scan for $1,000. I just had 10 shots in the belly to stop my coumadin for a procedure for $800.
Those costs along with the enormous insurance costs for liability and the huge settlements that doctors have to pay, encourages more diagnostics that some 92% of doctors say they do.
That's one big answer to cutting costs. Nothing offered in the current plan comes close to cutting costs.
They have to start over and get something that is going to work.
John Hyland (Fri Dec 18 10:04:11 2009)
Absolutely medical malpractice costs must be reduced, through implementation of medical courts, but the money from attorneys has kept that off the table. Sound familiar?
But before you get all upset at the attorneys recognize that less than 1/2 of 1% of our health care costs go to cover liability.
And John, the "profits" of 2.2% are only AFTER deducting their egregiously high overhead costs for executive salaries and bonuses and campaign contributions. When medical costs were rising at 5% per year and insurance company premiums at 15% ... please ... tell me why we should weep for this "poor" industry. Or better, as in Jo's arguments, why we should continue subsidizing them?
Jack Lohman (Fri Dec 18 10:26:49 2009)
I would guess that the Insurance industry's cost for management, gifts to politicians and gifts to charities, etc., are not a whole lot of difference than most industries. All are forced to do it. Cost of doing business. I'm sure you could look at any large company and you'd find cost of some things to the extreme. Boards of Directors fail at most times, unfortunately. Are doctor fees correct? Are not most of them rich? Are not most successful lawyers rich? Ar not most of the CEO's in big industry rich? That's our system. Get a good education and reap the benefits. That's what creates jobs and does the research and development that has given us 9 more years of life and a great life style. What were doctors like in the 30's. Came to your house and you gave them $5 bucks. Few diagnostic tests. Let the government take care of those who "really" can't take care of a catastrophic situation after all possible solutions have been tried. Welfare, private agencies and churches take care those who can't find food or shelter.
John Hyland (Fri Dec 18 11:30:28 2009)
This so-called “cost of doing business” is, simply, bribery. I agree with your earlier statement: start over and get something that is going to work. But first they have to get the bribery out of the system or they’ll NEVER get something that is going to work.
We cannot simply write this off as “Oh, that’s just the way it is.” It’s the way THEY have designed it, but not what WE have to accept. No country can survive this kind of corruption.
I’d be happy if (a) they killed the current bill, and (b) allowed into the Medicare system those who are unemployed or uninsured, including the Vets and Medicaid and SCHIP patients. THEN we can decide if employers should continue being responsible for employee’s healthcare, which I think would be absolutely counter-productive.
Jack Lohman (Fri Dec 18 11:46:23 2009)
When congress starts over on health care reform, success will continue to be elusive when we have values that are widely divergent. Health insurance is what it says it is - it's there to insure us against unexpected, unusually large losses. The culture of expecting everything for nothing (or for very little) simply must be changed. Until that changes Jack, and until consumers take responsibility for their own health care and the cost of their own health care, costs will not go down. Rail all you want about erroneous profit margins; this is a values problem first.
Jo (Fri Dec 18 14:53:45 2009)
If that's what the Right calls "values," I don't want anything to do with it. You should read the link provided by Clyde above. My values drive me to care.
Here is an interesting statement sent to me. If the Right-wing cares not about people, let's hope they care about our economy.
"William Hsiao of Harvard helped Taiwan to develop a high-performing national health system. China is now asking for his advice. If you think we're losing ground on the economic front to China today, wait until they too have a sound plan to efficiently handle health care, and there won't be a US industry left which can compete -- on any front -- with wiser nations."
Jack Lohman (Fri Dec 18 16:12:33 2009)
It is not about health care. It's about control. Congress is arrogating the role of providing health care.
Health insurance and health care are not the same thing. Congress doesn't provide health "care" but it will control your inurance--and anything else it can manage to get away with!
Janice Taylor (Fri Dec 18 16:25:10 2009)
I don't think so, Janice. I think this whole thing has been a well-planned charade, designed well in advance to insert killer amendments whenever it looked like it was getting close to passing, all to the great satisfaction of the insurance companies that fund the elections. That's certainly not the way I want my congress to be run, but that's the way it will remain until we get the corruptive influence of campaign bribes removed.
Jack Lohman (Fri Dec 18 16:45:41 2009)
You are 100% correct! Health care is not free. It's not even a relatively good deal. In fact it's darned expensive.
The cost of health care has sky-rocketed annually for over two decades far outpacing inflation. And insurance restrictions through HMOs, PPOs, etc. haven't done much either to stem rising prices or to guarantee freedom of choice. In most cases they virtually eliminate individual discretion on treatment and severely restrict access.
The concept of "free market" economics for health care is ludicrous. Stop breathing rarified air and come down to earth. No way will costs come down to any reasonable level even if we all were to pay our own share.
Health care, unlike much of what we consume, has little discretion. Most folks aren't hypocondriacs eager to get back into a doctor's office. I don't choose to see a doctor for my kidney malfunction, my heart attack, my cancer...all of which are far beyond my ability to pay full freight or even a sizable percentage.
So what's the answer?
Businesses need to be out of the equation. They can no longer shoulder the cost of health benefits as part of the compensation package for employees. World competition is too rough and profit margins too thin. Beside too many people don't fit under the umbrella of employer benefits.
21st Century government has a role to play in health care. And it must. The debate needs to be not should government be involved but rather how.
How do we as citizens and taxpayers partner with government in managing our health care?
Clearly government has a propensity to be bureaucratic, to move slowly, to enact inefficient procedures, to inflate prices and to screw up. Hey, that's government. (Frankly most businesses have similar issues from time to time also.) We need to constantly be working to correct these problems and reign in sloppy performance.
Nevertheless a national healthcare entitlement program is a heck-of-a-lot more justifiable than the incredible number of stupid, wasteful and self-serving expenditures that flow out of Washington, Madison, and Appleton. (See your own list of "pork" a few days ago.)
So let's stop decrying government health care initiatives and work towards enacting good ones. Let's set quality health care for U.S. citizens as a top priority and cut out much of the other crap that siphons off tax dollars for innumerable small special interest groups.
Given our diversity as a nation no plan will satisfy everyone, but let's stop dragging our feet and get into the game.
Perhaps the cacophony of the current health care reform debate would be no less if folks were working to optimize legislation rather than trying to stop it completely. At least the outcome would be better than what we will get now...and it will come.
Dennis (Fri Dec 18 17:07:46 2009)
Jo, The fact that different ages ( age based risk) already pay different amounts is one of the reasons why our system is the most expensive and inefficient system on the planet. The fee for service model and employer based insurance linked to insurance companies create big incentives for costs to be shifted one way (to the government) and profits shifted to the insurer and health care providers. The following link explains this in detail and how companies like Kaiser Permanente recognize this fact. Only when all people are part of the equation without discrimination will the system be able to get rid of this cost shifting and related inefficiencies. Another correlation to your "the old should pay more" scenario is the rationing bogyman. Yes, we do have rationing today in our system. But the rationing today is not based on rational health outcomes. If you charge older people more for their premiums you will ration their care more to the extreme of ability to pay not to health outcomes.
dave allen (Sat Dec 19 09:19:48 2009)
Being one of the Left-wing wackos on this article, let me say that we should quit jumping through so many hoops trying to avoid doing the right thing, and simply do it... if not out of a sense of compassion for the people in need, then most certainly for the need of the nation. The fee-for-service system is not perfect but it is far from being a major contributor to the problem. It is complex but offers a small profit (over costs) to the physician, and no "losses" that need to be cost-shifted. But even there we could increase payments to healthcare givers by 10% and STILL be better off than we are today.
Taiwan has adopted our Medicare system for all citizens, for a rate of 6% of GP compared to our 16.5%. If you get sick, you get care and the caregiver gets paid. Simple as that.
Why are we screwing around trying to avoid doing the right thing for the country? Because the insurance industry is paying off the politicians to avoid a fix. If nothing else this battle should convince both sides that we need to eliminate the corruption in politics.
Jack Lohman (Sat Dec 19 09:55:56 2009)
Jack, Right On. Do The Right Thing. Our judeo-Christian heritage talks about compassion etc. But a large portion of our society is perfectly able to blame the health care user. "You're too fat, you don't' work hard enough for your premium, you don't exercise enough etc. " Shameful isn't it. At the same time we think that we are God's chosen people so to adopt what others have done successfully (like the Taiwanese who totally revamped their health care system after carefully studying other systems)is rejected out of hand. Yes, the big money controls the politics and also the TV and talk radio media messages which continue the lies and brainwashing. I do have to stress however the huge impact fee for service has on our costs when our system is set up the way it is. If we do not totally revamp our system the fee for service will continue to be a big part of the rotten core. There may be ways to avoid this but i don't see anything in any of the healthcare bills addressing Fee for Service or anything that will address spiraling costs per service. Therefore any bill will simply add more users to a rotten foundation and we will collapse under the burden.
dave allen (Sat Dec 19 13:46:43 2009)
I understand your concern about that, Dave, and Dr Marcia Angell (PNHP) suggested incrementally reducing the payment percentages as a physician's utilization got further from the norm. I think something like this could work, but remember that the opposite could also occur: a disincentive to perform tests even when needed. I've written more about health care fixes HERE
Jack Lohman (Sat Dec 19 14:07:53 2009)
Will the right ever figure out that the system we have now is the most inefficient in the world? Health care cost for France is $3601, UK is $2992,Canada is $3895. We pay $5280. Maybe socialized medicine ain't so bad after all.
Dean Weichmann (Sun Dec 20 09:29:20 2009)
Is the system we have for purchasing groceries and say, digital cameras, also the most inefficient in the world? Why aren't we using the wisdom of consumers, transparency, the ability to freely choose - to address our health care costs? Our huge third party pay system has no control on costs - why would you opt for the government to control this commerce? Regulate it yes, but not be a substitute for free markets and knowledgeable consumers.
Jo (Sun Dec 20 09:44:15 2009)
Jo, Dennis said it best above: "Health care, unlike much of what we consume, has little discretion." He is absolutely right, and only those who are comfortably insured can overlook the plight of the system.
Most people cannot accurately access the intricacies of the various medical technologies and differentiate their costs. Yes, you (personally) feel you can, but "most" people cannot and should not try. They do not buy health care as they do food and cameras. They buy on the basis of trust, and whatever "transparency" we develop must be on the basis of effectiveness and not "prices." (Do you want your doctor skimping on technology to keep prices down?)
The private system is far less efficient than Medicare. The latter has established "fair" reimbursement rates based on local labor, technology and overhead costs, with even a small profit built in. The former pays on the basis of "reasonable and customary," which is sometimes four times the cost. Why? Because providers can get away with it and the privates simply pass their costs on to employers with little incentive to keep costs down, because their competitors are faced with equal demands.
THAT is what you call a "third party pay system [that] has no control on costs."
Jack Lohman (Sun Dec 20 11:09:29 2009)
A new study out by the government just a few weeks ago, said that the private company insurance is far more efficient than the government. Remember, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Post office, are all going bankrupt. They can't be run very good. All we seem to harp on is the high salaries in the insuracne industry. This new study showed that government under Obama has increased salaries to nearly double the old ones. He just wants to keep the government employees on his side for votes. They are one of the biggest single voting groups in the nation. He can't lose them as he has lost most others. Real time rating is near 40% approval. Lowest ever for a first year in office in history.
John Hyland (Sun Dec 20 14:55:12 2009)
I don't know what study that would be but I'd like to see it. If private was more efficient than government the industry would not have been so violently against the public option or allowing people to opt into Medicare at cost. They would have welcomed either one, but they didn't.
And please don't judge by the post office losses, because their problem is that the Internet has virtually replaced 1st class mail and bill paying by mail. That will never recover, which is why they are pushing the "flat rate" boxes so hard.
Jack Lohman (Sun Dec 20 15:31:29 2009)
Jack and followers--the unfunded medicare obligations are 36.3 TRILLION, more than SS at 6.6 trillion, more than TARP, more than the "stimulus" bill, etc. How is that "efficient"?
Our "system" is inefficient thanks to THIRD PARTIES, whether they are private insurance co's OR the govt. All anybody needs is major medical, NOT "health" insurance, Jo, which is abused by too many to count, especially those who have the taxpayers funding their medical visits.
If we all paid our drs the same way as we do other tradesmen, the prices WOULD come down, as there'd be no paperpushers and no bureacracy to process the insurance claims, whether those claims are sent to the gov't or to a private company.
As to 50,000 people dying per year, where do you get that figure Jack? If that were the case, we'd see at least SOME of those folks in our ER, but I have never yet seen anyone die "for lack of health care" by which YOU mean health INSURANCE. The two are separate. ANYBODY will get health CARE at any ER, no questions asked. It's the law. Yet we do not see uninsured (or publicly insured) folks in ER who are at death's door; oh, no. THEY usually come for other, more trivial reasons.
You could have public or private insurance, and be too unmotivated to bother keeping appointments, or to take care of yourself or your sick kid--like the mom who used her welfare money to buy beer, cell phone, and cigarettes, but didn't buy Tylenol to bring down her child's fever. Which child then had febrile seizures, and came by ambulance to ER. How's that for efficiency? If she'd had to work like the rest of us who have bills to pay, I bet she'd find some efficiency and responsiblity genes she didn't know she had!
NORMAL--yes, I'll say NORMAL--people do not neglect their children or themselves like that. ANYBODY in WI who is expecting a child, WILL be able to get gov't-paid healthcare, but not all of them bother to actually go to their dr. Then they show up in ER, even going so far as to admit they didn't keep their appointment "because they didn't feel like it". Normal working people do not act this way.
Normal private-insured people have to pay copays of $15-50 for most anything, unlike the $3 copay required for SOME (only some) people on the gov't roll. Which copay they often refuse to pay, so then they are without medicine.
Yet they can afford to smoke--we can smell it on them. A carton of cigarettes costs $75!!! So they can buy cigarettes, but not afford $3 for a prescription!? Do you see something wrong with priorities here?
IT SIMPLY IS NOT ENOUGH TO OFFER A FREE RIDE. People also need to be responsible--which they will never do as long as they think world owes them a living!
I bet a lot of wasted money could be recouped by A) stopping health insurance and B) stopping gov't programs that give health insurance, and C) having major medical ONLY. Even if the gov't, the most notoriously inefficient entity there is, gave everyone major medical, it'd still waste less than what is currently wasted on our middleman system--and don't forget GOV'T IS A MIDDLEMAN.
I do agree that this whole thing IS a "charade", but it is designed to take our minds off even worse power grabs by the statists--such as the Copenhagen treaty, which would end US sovereignty, or CapnTrade, or get this--the federal gov't's desire to control ALL water.
Yes, they want to rewrite the Clean Air and Water Act, and omit the word "navigable" regarding water. Feingold is pushing hard for this. I suppose it's due to "concern" about wetlands. But wetlands are still navigable by canoe or fanboat. He knows that taking "navigable" out leaves no protection against gov't abuse re. our water.
When this legislation was passed, the intent was to keep state "A" from polluting , say, a river that ran through state "B". Taking out "navigable" means the feds would control ALL water in the USA, as there is nothing (like the word "navigable")to stop that from being the clear meaning of the bill.
So the whole discussion re. health insurance is minute in importance compared to that. We should all see it for what it is--a smokescreen to hide egregious power grabs by the gov't. (Yes, their "health" proposal is a power grab, too, but nothing like the water thing.)
emily matthews (Sun Dec 20 20:11:25 2009)
Those of you who tout the applicability of the efficiencies of the market system to the entire health care system. Please explain one thing:
How come we have the highest cost and the poorest results?
And, please don't talk about malpractice costs (which are not a major contributor). Go ahead, tell me factually the three top reasons backed up by facts. Try to cover at least 50% of the difference.
dave allen (Mon Dec 21 06:47:10 2009)
Jo,
As you know I try to deal in facts but sometimes try to summarize from the specific to the general. So here is one of those times. The overwhelming economic evidence on a microeconomic level and macro economic level show that health care does not respond in total to market forces like (to use your example) digital cameras. Yet, you and others continue to insists that it does (or should) Why? There must be some deep seated emotional or philosophical reason why it is so difficult to admit this fact. We can no more squeeze the square health care problem through the round hole of "free market uber alles" than we can the reverse and try (like the Soviets) to change human nature and squeeze the whole economy through a command economy model. These are facts and to ignore them (in either case) is folly. show me one successful example in the entire world of a health care system that meets your standards. Go ahead, just one. Our system doesn't count of course since we all admit it is unsustainable.
dave allen (Mon Dec 21 06:56:41 2009)
Emily, I'm not impressed with the numbers in debt that you site. First, we deserve every bit of it for allowing our politicians to take cash bribes from industries that want in the taxpayer's pockets. Secondly, as I ran my company over 25 years, when things were going bad or it needed a cash influx, I went to my savings account.
In today's parlance that's called raising taxes, but right wingers will find every excuse in the book to avoid that. So it is what it is; live with it.
And you should be very happy with the new health care bill. It mandates that 30 million uninsured buy health care insurance whether they can afford it or not. Even if that money is needed for food on the table, cough it up. They'll not be living free off the hog any more.
That's called "improving access," and insurance company stocks have risen recently (which also should embolden the Right).
Jack Lohman (Mon Dec 21 07:03:21 2009)
Ok, three reasons why we have the highest costs and the poorest results, backed up with facts?
- Your assumption that we have the poorest results isn't supported by facts. And don't give me average life and newborn survival rates. Doesn't fly.
- We have the highest costs because the vast majority of Americans don't give a damn what they pay for their health care. Matter of fact, many Americans think health care should be free - or at least not be a nuisance. That just isn't the case.
- When consumers are forced to (or easily able to) compare prices, the cost of health care declines, sometimes radically. Fact: WalMart $4 prescription drugs. Fact: Blood pressure medicine from $128 to $29. Anti-fungal medicine from $397 to $9. Fact: Routine gynecological exam from $200 to $75.Fact: NetworkHealth Clinic charge for a Saturday visit with Nurse Practitioner: $120 (I think that's what I was quoted when I stopped in a few months ago. Close), Fast Care ThedaCare Clinic, $52.
Jo (Mon Dec 21 18:19:45 2009)
Those are really, really good facts, Jo, but total bunk. I doubt that the "vast majority of Americans" even go to the doctor, let alone care about prices. Infant mortality rates are bad here because expectant mothers often cannot afford pre-natal care (but they can afford cigarettes and Big Macs). Longevity is shorter for a combination of reasons: lifestyle, smoking, drinking, obesity, AND the inability to afford checkups before diseases get beyond repair.
The reason for our costs being higher than other countries are: 31% wasted on insurance bureaucracy and 20% consumed by over-useof testing by physicians, fraud and medical malpractice. Cut all of those and we cut in half our costs.
Yea, add co-pays and we reduce utilization slightly, but that is often counter-productive. It keeps patients away from the doctor until their diseases are more costly to treat or are untreatable.
Jack Lohman (Mon Dec 21 19:08:03 2009)
First and foremost, your 31% number is total bunk. And you doubt the vast majority of Americans go to the doctor? Geez Jack. Now, you've got something with overuse of medical tests. When I am paying, I'm much more informed and cautious about the wise, effective use of medical tests. Does every doc my son sees need to do an EKG - in the space of a year? No, of course not. And if I don't say no, it would be done. Very bad.
But more to the point, immortality numbers in the U.S. - are higher than some countries because many countries do not count an infant as born if he or she doesn't live for 4, 6, 8 weeks or more. In the U.S. of course, any live birth is an infant, even if delivered at 32 weeks or earlier. As for life expectancy - life expectancy in the U.S. is shorter than in some countries because of gunshot deaths, more babies kept alive at birth and the diseases of obesity including diabetes and heart disease. I don't have time to pull the references!
Jo (Mon Dec 21 20:23:25 2009)
The "31% waste" is in the eye of the beholder, but it covers all billing people at the hospitals and clinics needed to administer the monster of 1300 national insurance companies. It is the total cost, not the difference (which my guess would be about 20%).
Jack Lohman (Tue Dec 22 07:13:12 2009)
|
|
Blog Archives
| 2010 |
  December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Solberg: Healing After an Abortion
• Basketball fans eyeing extension of Miller Park sales tax
• Nanny sex-ed bill goes to Doyle
• A first. Village limits pension contribution for employees
• Nanny State update: Toothbrushing mandated
• Obama pushes education inflation
• WI Investment Board votes to borrow to juice up returns
• So Republicans have brought nothing to the table?
• You have got to be kidding me
• Nygren: Governor Continues Terms of Failure in State of the State
• Sen. Fitzgerald: Governor down the wrong track at high speed
• Phosphorus is the new CO2. $Billions in Wisconsin
• More Obama giveaways
• A reprimand? Would you keep him on the job?
• Burri: Sarah Palin for Prez troubles me
• Quote of the Day – Obama after the pie-eating contest
• Populism, abused and trampled
• Fitzgerald: Senate Republicans Propose Real Job Creation Agenda
• Stripped down health insurance – it’s about time
• Ok GOP, scrap the Party of NO; time to lead
• No way Feingold is a Coakley. Is Wall a Brown?
• Burri: Conservatives off the chart for a RINO?
• Paltry quid pro quo?
• Doyle says ARRA has ‘created or retained’ 44,000 WI jobs
• Does most of the public fall for this stuff?
• When you get signatures, always get a couple extra
• Blame it on the outmoded computers
• Scott Brown victory does not scuttle health bill
• 8th Congressional Candidate Forum, Jan. 25
• Scott Walker Meet-and-greet, Monday, Jan. 18
• Aren’t consumers taxpayers too?
• MORE taxes on investment income - dreadful and wrong
• Join the blaze orange army and say ‘Enough is Enough’
• The future of government-run health care
• Tax on banks is a really bad idea
• Roth, Savard on the stump, grassroots style
• Savard speaking in Appleton, 8 PM, Wed., Jan. 13.
• Rahmlow: Savard, Bies frontrunners for State Senate
• Burri: Failing Political Correctness 101
• School contracts and Race to the Top
• Senator Feingold worrisome and big red flags
• Psephological?
• This is really important. Contact Rep. Kagen. Now. Please.
• This is exactly what we need from Governor Doyle
• This guy is my hero
• Why am I not surprised?
• Talk health reform with Feingold (Th), Petri (today)
• Give the Mayor power over MPS - if he can break contracts
• Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference
• The $2.7 billion Wisconsin deficit no one told you about
• Walker launches county accountability website
• Rahmlow: Why is Van Hollen dodging the Nebraska deal?
|
| 2009 |
December
|
November
|
October
• The Lawton-Bader files
• Yup, it’s the TAX LEVY, not the tax RATE
• Ellis: costly automobile insurance laws must be rolled back
• If not Barrett, who?
• The subsidy game
• Burri: Bailouts, Banks, Health Care, and the Mob
• Attend Appleton Schools budget meeting tonight
• A public option WON’T increase costs? That’s delusional!
• Appleton Schools budget meeting Monday
• Wisconsin should be screaming for accountability
• Burri: If anything, we need more obstructionism around here
• WI on the leading edge - in the wrong direction
• Rep. Montgomery: Utility Customers Join State’s Crime-Fighting Efforts
• Public Conservation and Recreation Lands Total 16.5% of State
• In the crow's nest of the Titanic, shouting 'Iceberg!'
• Is Rep. Nelson a political hack?
• Health care: The road ahead will be brutal
• Kagen's pandering again
• Birthers - good stuff for you
• How much do we bend over backward for seniors?
• The trouble with health care is paying for it
• Two-parent families: The Gold Standard
• Burri: Kids... the joys and blessings
• Very, very worried about health care
• Rep. Huebsch: Wisconsin is proof government health care isn’t the answer
• School district contracts push up tax levy
• What? Obama, the Peace Prize?
• TODAY - hearing on Campaign Finance Reform
• Appleton School District tax levy up way too much
• CBO report is out - and the bill isn't even written yet?
• So, how much do YOU budget for health care?
• Burri: Copenhagen trip was amateurish
• “Sotomayor, you have blood on your hands...”
• Cap and Trade. Always follow the money
• Rep. Kagen gets (almost) free health services
• I actually agree with Rep. Kagen
• Future Wisconsin Conference for Conservatives, October 10, Wauwatosa
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
|
| 2008 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
• Important votes Tuesday, including Appleton Common Council
• Democrats are becoming supply siders??
• Further debunking Hillary myths
• WEAC has created an unsustainable monopoly
• From Mark Gundrum: One of the greatest honors an American can experience
• 'Operation Chaos' working?
• Joe Martin the best candidate in Appleton's 8th
• State programs to cut? - Volume II
• Oh the naivete of youth
• Not just disingenuous - flat wrong
• Steve - you will be missed
• Make cuts only AFTER you're elected....
• Getting serious: What programs can we cut?
• Rep. Steve Kagen joining me on Jerry Bader Show today
• Rep. Van Roy: Dental Care Pilot Program
• Has Dave Obey turned the corner on earmarks?
• Speaker Huebsch: Governor turns down Federal Aid?
• Mark Rahmlow: "We're Broke."
• As taxpayers, how do we know if it's a Chevy or a Lexus?
• This is trash talk - about a veteran
• Frank Lasee: Take time to get the Compact right
• 'The Gableman Ad' - is it racist?
• Roth thankful, Kagen shaking money tree
• Gov. Doyle's office not enamored with Freedom of Information
• Governor Doyle will never do it
• Leadership on smoking ban? Not Hanna
• Rep. Van Roy speaks out about smear ads
• You're threatening me about potholes?
• Losing the Hastert seat is NOT a trend and NOT curtians for the GOP
• First suggestion for 'slashing' programs
• Big money-saver for municipalities
• More one time fixes. Nuts.
• Any chances???
• I'm doing the Jerry Bader Show, today, the 11th
• Representative Frank Lasee: Final Waltz of the Season
• Guest Blog: It's not the county's business to be in the nursing home business
• Yup, Hillary won Texas and Ohio
• Gableman/Butler race featured - and it isn't pretty
• Lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL
• He who sacrifices liberty.....
• Duh.
• The Troha sentencing, Doyle and that $200K
• Guns, passion and "originality"
• How hard is it anyway, to shut down a government program?
• Voting is a PRIVILEGE. And so are property taxes....
• Guest Blog: Governor Doyle, cancel your Ireland trip
|
February
|
January
|
| 2007 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Lots of ideas. No money.
• The Cigarette Tax - "Poor Policy Instrument?"
• School budget Lite?
• Frankenstein - not in the library, but in the legislature
• A librarian, a legislator, a president
• $1.25/pack - NO, NO, NO, and NO
• Kagen and Reagan in the same breath?
• Menasha: behind the 8-ball, but not biting the dust
• Any way you slice it, Wisconsin government wants (further) in on health care
• The World is Flat...what about health care?
• The PAC - too precious to fail. Day 3
• News follow-ups: Appleton West, Kagen at the White House
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail - Day 2
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail
• New Transit Tax coming your way
• Rep. Petri has his finger in the dike - I guess
• AASD Retirement Costs Burdensome
• Health care, health care, health care, health care
• Water rate increase was no slam dunk
• Education for all is just a bad dream
• New Year's resolutions from a parade snob
|
| 2006 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
| 2000 |
May
|
|
