Senator unveils universal healthcare bill

Response from earlier comment: At the same topic, So much of what you say is correct, however, why does the single payer have to be the government. I mean after all they do such a good job with the post office and the DMV. Why not just make services cost what they are worth. I mean why does a dose of tylenol cost $15.00 in the hospital. You ever see a physician's bill charging $150.00 and go through Medicare or an insurance company and the doctor gets paid $35.00. Why can't the doctor just charge everyone $35.00 for the same service. If I go and don't have Medicare or insurance, I would be billed the full $150.00 for the same service. I would not know this until the bill comes because the office staff does not know how much the charge is. It is not posted in the office. We are buying a service and/or product that we do not know the actual cost of. It would be like going to the store and buying something with no idea of how much it will cost until we get the bill. I for one wish that hospital's, clinic's, physician's should post prices for services so the consumer would know what they will be paying. Everyone should have to pay the same. Old, young, rich or poor, insured, Medicare/Medicaid and uninsured. Why lower rates for some and higher rates for others for the same service?

A single-payer, publicly funded, privately provided healthcare delivery system would cover all Americans, Rep. John Conyers' HR 676, The National Health Insurance Act, currently re-introduced in Congress is the answer. Currently, the average family of four covered under an employee health plan spends a total of $4,225 on health care annually – $2,713 on premiums and another $1,522 on medical services, drugs and supplies (Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey.) This figure does not include the additional 1.45% Medicare payroll tax levied on employees. A study by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of four making the median family income of $56,200 per year would pay about $2,700 for all health care costs. Business Will Pay Less In 2006, health insurers charged employers an average of $11,500 for a health plan for a family of four. On average, the employer paid 74% of this premium, or $8,510 per year. This figure does not include the additional 1.45% payroll tax levied on employers for Medicare. Under H.R. 676, employers would pay a 4.75% payroll tax for all health care costs. For an employee making the median family income of $56,200 per year, the employer would pay about $2,700. The Nation Will Pay About the Same, While Covering All Americans Savings from reduced administration, bulk purchasing, and coordination among providers will allow coverage for all Americans while reducing health care inflation in the long term. Annual savings from enacting H.R. 676 are estimated at $387 billion (Baker). Contact your Rep, ask them to co-sponsor HR 676, let's get true health care reform.

adgil,

Hilarious lack of insight!

Beyond expressing your opinion, do you actually have anything resembling facts to back up that opinion? Or is your opinion always backed up by your opinion?

If you can read what I said above it is this - the Liberal government diliberately cut transfer payments to Canada's provinces. That cut health care by nearly 30%. Both major Canadian political parties have been considered - by the population - to be footstools for Washington's policies. Like the UK wih Tony Blair.

Ignoring that, and obviously having done zero research yourself - you chime in with "the source of the problem is Conservatives by "defunding".."

Thus you flatter yourself that you've debunked an "excuse" by seeing it.

If you've got real proof, pony up sport, and let's see it. Otherwise it is your effort at debunking that is an excuse for a failed system.

Show all the nice people what you've got - beyond talking points. K?

Finally we discover what the source of the problem is:
Conservatives by "defunding"and
Washington by influencing a foreign countries healthcare system.
Somebody needs a new "excuse".

uppityprogressive writes about Canada,

"..there was no waiting list until the conservatives infected government in the 80's and defunded the program. It would be simple to protect the funding if that was the will of the people from the start."

Close, but not quiite.

Before he was Liberal Prime Minister - and President Reagan's bestest ever Canuck buddy - Paul Martin was Canada's Minister of Finance.

As Canada's head beancounter he claimed that the previous Progressive Conservative and Liberal Governments both had gone on the usual insane vote-buying sprees and the departmental consensus was that the deficit now was a horror.

What to do? Cut back gradually? Hell no! It had to be slashed. Canada needed a man unafraid to soil himself.

Paul Martin wasn't your average Canadian. He owned a huge company called "Canada Steamship Lines" and to free himself of the burden of taxes, which he himself influenced, he moved his business to the Bahamas. A conflict of interest? Many thought so.

Deciding what needed to be chopped from the federal budget he saw that the Federal Government and the provinces had agreed that, for health care to work, they had to share costs. So from the beginning expenses were split 50\50. The system worked just fine.

But that is where Martin saw a huge potential savings. Without agreement with the provinces he unilaterally cut the split to about 80\20 - with the Federal Government paying 20%. The provinces were left holding the financial bag and with no way to recoup except by cutting their own services.

When finally the deficit was under control - what happened next?

The split at last tally was about 87\13. And the now Conservative government [the word "Progressive" has been banished] is pushing hard for complete privatization of everything: health care, social services, education, the justice system, a peffect duplication of all the same failures we're seen here.

Why? Because Canadians understand that Canada's 2 large political parties take their orders from Washington.

All the problems complained about above by people who say the system up north doesn't work, with operation delays, queues at emergency wards, the system shipping people to the US for treatment are the result of the budget cuts made by Martin and maintained to force the public to accept the same system as ours.

A system in which 47 million people have zero health care. And if you get sick and your insurer doesn't feel like paying, you'd better have a great set of assets you can liquidate to pay to stay alive.

If President Obama chooses a single payer system and does an end run around the insurers, the system will work. If he compromises the way Canada did - it will fail - and for all the same reasons.

BTW Canadians in poll after poll have consistently opposed any privatization, let alone further privatization of the system. They have stated flatly that they will happily pay more to keep the system in tact. The only people refusing to listen?

Their politicians.

I lived in Canada, there was no waiting list until the conservatives infected government in the 80's and defunded the program. It would be simple to protect the funding if that was the will of the people from the start.

Currently, most people are being served as they wish, and only non emergency services are supposedly put on any waiting list.

The program however, is constantly maligned by the right, with or without correct information.

In the 70s, you walked in and got served. The push for privatizing everything is a corporate effort that is international. Nothing is safe from it, post offices, schools, medicine...nothing. It is up to the people to protect their common wealth.

Does "Universal Health Care" mean that after six months waiting for a referral to a specialist, like in Canada, I can go to an adjoining country and pay for the treatment, before I die?
Does it also mean the elimination of those huge piles of dead bodies, of the "uninsured", outside emergency rooms and hospitals?

Stevox answers zk278206 on the quesion of

"How are we supposed to pay for all of this?" with -

"Higher taxes of course."

Typically, funds to pay for health care are shunted into trust accounts. Accounts which cannot be dipped into to finance wars or other boondoggles. It's actuarial. Not everyone gets sick at the same time, so the fund should grow over time.

That said who are we kidding here?

You want health care coverage? Are you getting it free NOW? Why would it be different than paying out of pocket?

This vague argument about "more taxes!" has played out.

When you're gretting nothing back from paying taxes then by all means complain like hell.

Conversely, if you're paying [as Europe and Canada does] a small amount potentially to save the lives of your family and yourself - money you would have to pay anyway - what exactly is there to argue about? Your money is creating value not just going into some middleman's pocket while you get stiffed and have to sell your house to pay medical bills.

Do you think that of the 47 million people who now have zero health care coverage they ALL are going to need to be hospitalized?

It must be single payer in order to cut the obscene waste of having insurance companies in the middle. Medicare for all with doctors collectively bargaining with the state for payment amounts.

Medicare for all. We have the structure, create the expansion, take the pressure off all businesses.

Medicare has worked in Canada since 1969 (ish).

The article even said the bill was "short on financial specifics".

Everyone does realize with the already existing entitlement the national debt is 56 TRILLION dollars?

How are we supposed to pay for all of this?

Well,that may be all well and good,but,let me ask this question.Will doctors and trained medical personel,be the ones giving input on this so called plan?Or will senators,and other goverment buricrats be handling this? I dont know about you,but the thought of the goverment handling my health care,scares the crap out of me.I admit,insurance companies dont know,nor are they licenced to despence medical care,which is what HMO's do,but aside from that,where in the constitution dose it say,me or any one else, is entitled to health insurance?you are by law,entitled to emergency room care,and then only to stableize you.Listen folks,the U.S. has the best health care in the world bar none,I have seen miricles preformed in the OR,ER,ICU and in medical research,and no surprise,all that wiz bang technolgy and education is not cheap,and companies offer health insurance as a benifit,they do not have to.I do agree that the HMO system has to go,but I dont think the goverment needs to get involved in health care either,unless you all like a 24 hour wait in the ER,which is what will happen as soon as you make it where every low life,crack head,drunk has access to free health care,I know,I worked ER at Charity Hospital in New Orleans. If we think we are entitled to afordable(free) health care,well hell,I'm entitled to car insurance,home owneres insurance,life insurance,ect.I got a better plan,why dont we just get off our lazy butts,go to work, and buy it,just like any other insurance,or any thing else that's top quality.,lets not cheapen the finest thing we have in this country.If you dont think so,go to Africa,or even Mexico and see what their ER's are like.

If you want to know about a good health care bill I suggest you check out the United States National Health Insurance Act H.R. 676. This bill will create a single payer health care system and eliminate the need for health insurance company's. The bill currently has 91 co sponsors in the House of Representative and there is a good change this pass if gets enough public support. Please tell you congress men to support.

I agree, preventive medicine should be taught beginning with the children... then look at curing illness instead of treating symptoms... there is a lot to be done...bring the medical field out of the dark ages and into the light...let proven natural cures be a part of the system...re-evaluate the whole insurance end of it...etc., etc..

One of the most important ways that we, as a nation can control the spiraling cost of healthcare is to address the issues that increase the expenses - namely illness.
Preventive medicine has been completely ignored. We hear of paying for the insurance that can't possibly decrease at the rate of increased illness and disease.
If the gov't has free clinics that could offer testing, it would end up costing the nation LESS if we prevent the illnesses to begin with.
Free clinics could start with school aged children, libraries, post offices - all places that are frequented by all walks of life.
Children who are not already insured would have questionairres go home with them that asks where they are covered and would parents be interested in free benefits?
How can we mandate employer's who are struggling to provide benefits - with no pre-existing conditions for carriers and think we can control this?
You are going about this all wrong, Mr. Senator.
Use your head and have the gov't work WITH the carriers and employer's and pull the weight that is going to lift us out of this mess.

I'd put the most faith in any healthcare bill crafted by Ted Kennedy. He's dedicated most of his professional life to this exact subject.

I'm actually kinda excited about this. While I'll reserve my judgements until the actual implementation, but healthcare for all is something that is loooong over due in our country. Let's hope we finally get it right...

I hope this plan is well crafted, the American people have waited far to long for a working health care system.

The details will be critically important to find out. Let's hope that they don't try to push through some half baked plan that will only give a boost to the pharms, etc... put some brilliant minds together and let's get the best plan for everyone...

The bailout is doing what..? Word on the street is, they already spent most of the money...except maybe 60 billion...where has all the money gone..? I don't see any homeowner has beens being helped...what's the deal..?
Don't American tax payers deserve to know where their money is going..? This administration will go out, still, without any accountability for the abuses against its citizens...

I want to know where the money has been and is going...

the devil is in the details... and I agree with dirtymilk, we should nationalize the health care industry. Why its it so much money for bailout, and no money for the healtlhcare system.

This is fantastic- I just wish he would have waited to introduce this until after the inauguration.

YES !!!

i am so happy that after years and years of big business loving neo-cons running the show, all of the good things that they have inexplicably blocked from happening may finally happen. everything that until recently seemed to far off and so impossibly, now suddenly seems very possible

The best part?

Car companies are going under becuase they can't afford healthcare costs. If healthcare no longer costs companies to provide, that means that people who treat their employees well will be competitive.

If we nationalize healthcare, we will fix nearly every other financial problem we have. This measure is the ONLY measure that matters right now. All of these bailouts are a waste of time.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Maybe we will finally catch up with the rest of the world.

I'd like to see how this fits with Obama's plan, and other upcoming proposals by Kennedy, Stark and Dingell.

I'm glad to see that our representatives are taking the initiative here

Can't wait to see how this rolls.

Screw Ford and AIG. My foot hurts and I'd like to see a doctor.