Any questions?
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/21/National-Economy/Images/bipartisanpolicy.jpg)
game, set, match!
sure...I have a question
This garphic shows that health care spending will be a driver of our future debt....but what does the garphic look like for the past 30 years (say 1981-2011)?
The huffington post reports costs have doubled over the past 9 years. Ive heard it was like 125% over tthe beginning of 2000.
Everyone agrees its a problem, just no concrete solution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/us-healthcare-costs-double-report_n_862677.html
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 22, 2011, 01:49:21 PM
Any questions?
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/21/National-Economy/Images/bipartisanpolicy.jpg)
Ok, so right now we are going into 2012, where the chart shows health care costs rising. The question is why are costs rising? What has changed from 2011 to 2012 that causes such a sudden reversal in the trend (the chart shows costs decreasing in 2011)?
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 22, 2011, 02:21:27 PM
sure...I have a question
This garphic shows that health care spending will be a driver of our future debt....but what does the garphic look like for the past 30 years (say 1981-2011)?
I like your question.
Here is the historic break-down:
Nore that the green line for Medicaid and Medicare combined is what preceeds the initial graph that started this thread:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/United_States_Health_Care_Expenditures_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_(1960_to_2008).png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/United_States_Health_Care_Expenditures_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_(1960_to_2008).png
Looks like we're going to need to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid.
It is a relief to know that defense spending and socialization of banking losses are copacetic.
It's my backwards way of stating that Faye's claim is uhhhhh.... silly.
I would like to see the obesity rate plotted on these graphs.
From surgeon general Richard Carmona to a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives in 2003:
QuoteAs Surgeon General, I welcome this chance to talk with you about a health crisis affecting every state, every city, every community, and every school across our great nation.
The crisis is obesity. It’s the fastest-growing cause of disease and death in America. And it’s completely preventable.
Nearly two out of every three Americans are overweight or obese.
One out of every eight deaths in America is caused by an illness directly related to overweight and obesity.
Think of it this way: statistics tell us that of the 20 members serving on this subcommittee, at least two will die because of a completely preventable illness related to overweight or obesity. Because of overweight or obesity, two of you will spend less time serving your communities and enjoying your children and grandchildren.
Read the entire speech here: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/testimony/obesity07162003.htm (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/testimony/obesity07162003.htm)
One of the number one cures for obesity? Get people out of their cars.
Quote from: buckethead on December 22, 2011, 03:47:38 PM
Looks like we're going to need to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid.
It is a relief to know that defense spending and socialization of banking losses are copacetic.
It's my backwards way of stating that Faye's claim is uhhhhh.... silly.
What claim is it that I am making?
To reign in healthcare costs, we might want to do something about the over-billing for unnecessary medical procedures...........and better yet, implement a universal healthcare system..........as the US is paying twice as much per American on health care as other advanced nations, while leaving 20% of the population without any healthcare coverage, and many more without adequate healthcare coverage ie junk insurance.
It is the only advanced nation in the world where people have to file for bankruptcy due to sky-rocketing medical expenses. According to AARP,
over 2 milion Americans file for bankruptcy every year due to medical expenses.
http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/aarp-185-million-americans-go-bankrupt-due-to-medical-bills-in-one-year/
The number of people that file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses in other advanced nations: 0
Quote from: dougskiles on December 22, 2011, 04:00:23 PM
I would like to see the obesity rate plotted on these graphs.
From surgeon general Richard Carmona to a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives in 2003:
QuoteAs Surgeon General, I welcome this chance to talk with you about a health crisis affecting every state, every city, every community, and every school across our great nation.
The crisis is obesity. It’s the fastest-growing cause of disease and death in America. And it’s completely preventable.
Nearly two out of every three Americans are overweight or obese.
One out of every eight deaths in America is caused by an illness directly related to overweight and obesity.
Think of it this way: statistics tell us that of the 20 members serving on this subcommittee, at least two will die because of a completely preventable illness related to overweight or obesity. Because of overweight or obesity, two of you will spend less time serving your communities and enjoying your children and grandchildren.
Read the entire speech here: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/testimony/obesity07162003.htm (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/testimony/obesity07162003.htm)
One of the number one cures for obesity? Get people out of their cars.
Moderate sugar from the American diet....... tax it! But it would be social legislation.
^A start would be to restrict the lobbying power of the food industries.
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 22, 2011, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: buckethead on December 22, 2011, 03:47:38 PM
Looks like we're going to need to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid.
It is a relief to know that defense spending and socialization of banking losses are copacetic.
It's my backwards way of stating that Faye's claim is uhhhhh.... silly.
What claim is it that I am making?
QuoteQuoteHealth Care Costs is the Primary Driver of our National Debt
Quote from: buckethead on December 22, 2011, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 22, 2011, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: buckethead on December 22, 2011, 03:47:38 PM
Looks like we're going to need to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid.
It is a relief to know that defense spending and socialization of banking losses are copacetic.
It's my backwards way of stating that Faye's claim is uhhhhh.... silly.
What claim is it that I am making?
QuoteQuoteHealth Care Costs is the Primary Driver of our National Debt
Actually that is evident from the chart...........not just a claim that I make.
In reducing the deficit we MUST find ways to reign in healthcare costs.............preventing over-billing by providers to cover for uninsured services provided, and combatting rampant Medicare fraud is the way to go.
Not the inhumane ideas of Republicans to shut down Medicare and Medicaid altogether.
You had me until you said "Universal Health Care", Faye.
It's a pie-in-the-sky concept, like ending world hunger. It sounds fantastic, but it's not realistic. One size never fits all, not even the hats that claim. If obesity is a disease, it's a desease of the mind. Not knowing you ate too much, or that woofing down half a pack of Oreos is bad for you. It's only hereditary in the sense that fat children tend to have fat parents (or lazy parents).
And what about medical facilities' collective fear of getting sued? Doesn't that also play into the cost of care? Precautionary measures, running tests, administrators, paperwork, beaurocratic red tape...$$.
And you want the government to handle to your health care? The government seems awfully fond of banning things. Through the eyes of an official, I would think the most efficient means of achieving the goal of affordable health care is to control what goes into people's bodies. Don't we have enough proof that there are things the government should keep its hands OFF of?
Quote from: kells904 on December 23, 2011, 12:56:55 PM
Don't we have enough proof that there are things the government should keep its hands OFF of?
Yeah, keeping their hands off the Financial Industry CAUSED our current economic crisis. That was just excellent for our county's sake......let the financial industry go wild. ::)
People still haven't learned......shakes head.
It is plain wrong to say that government should keep their hands OFF our country's economic well-being.
We need
effective government to protect our citizens' health and economic well-being.
Quote from: kells904 on December 23, 2011, 12:56:55 PM
You had me until you said "Universal Health Care", Faye.
It's a pie-in-the-sky concept, like ending world hunger. It sounds fantastic, but it's not realistic. One size never fits all, not even the hats that claim. If obesity is a disease, it's a desease of the mind. Not knowing you ate too much, or that woofing down half a pack of Oreos is bad for you. It's only hereditary in the sense that fat children tend to have fat parents (or lazy parents).
And what about medical facilities' collective fear of getting sued? Doesn't that also play into the cost of care? Precautionary measures, running tests, administrators, paperwork, beaurocratic red tape...$$.
And you want the government to handle to your health care? The government seems awfully fond of banning things. Through the eyes of an official, I would think the most efficient means of achieving the goal of affordable health care is to control what goes into people's bodies. Don't we have enough proof that there are things the government should keep its hands OFF of?
Why is it pie in the sky every modern country does it but us. Are we so inferior to other countries?
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 23, 2011, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: kells904 on December 23, 2011, 12:56:55 PM
You had me until you said "Universal Health Care", Faye.
It's a pie-in-the-sky concept, like ending world hunger. It sounds fantastic, but it's not realistic. One size never fits all, not even the hats that claim. If obesity is a disease, it's a desease of the mind. Not knowing you ate too much, or that woofing down half a pack of Oreos is bad for you. It's only hereditary in the sense that fat children tend to have fat parents (or lazy parents).
And what about medical facilities' collective fear of getting sued? Doesn't that also play into the cost of care? Precautionary measures, running tests, administrators, paperwork, beaurocratic red tape...$$.
And you want the government to handle to your health care? The government seems awfully fond of banning things. Through the eyes of an official, I would think the most efficient means of achieving the goal of affordable health care is to control what goes into people's bodies. Don't we have enough proof that there are things the government should keep its hands OFF of?
Why is it pie in the sky every modern country does it but us. Are we so inferior to other countries?
Yes, and the beauty of all those countries offering universal health care to all their citizens is that their systems aren't a one size fit all system.
There is the Canadian system with private providers (like our Medicare system), there is the UK and Spain system with public providers (like our tri-care system for the military), and then there are hybrid systems like the ones provided in the Netherlands and Germany.
But what all these advanced nations have in common is that
everyone has access to affordable health care through a universal health care system.
Regardless of whether these citizens are overweight, smoke, are young or old, are employed in a full-time job or not, are female or male or all the other exclusionary characteristics we have in our silly patchwork health care system that additionally has abysmal health care outcomes for our population.
Because most of those other countries don't have 300 million people living in them, JeffreyS. For all the successes of Tri-care, you don't hear about the failures. Losing paperwork, making mistakes, etc. For some, going to Medical was no big deal; for others it was a nightmare. But I don't think they're not doing their best; it's high customer volume. The more people a single entity has to serve, the more you're asking for disaster.
This is merely speculation, but of the people I met in the UK, a lot of 30-somethings lived quite modestly, or had roommates. That seems like the consequence of having the govt taking so much of their money to provide sevices on a nat'l level. Also, do you remember when the doctors over there went on strike? I reeeaaaaally wouldn't wanna have to deal with that here. I wonder if Americans would accept another change in lifestyle to accommodate for UHC. Wouldn't it just feed into more talks of tax hikes and class warfare rhetoric. Great Britain is
It's just my opinion that Washington screws things up more than they fix things. And stuff gets politicized unnecessarily, just so they can get reelected. Look, Socialism worked fine in smurf village, but there was only 100 of them. 300 mil of em? Probably not the same result.
Kells, I love to sling the word socialism around as much as any red blooded American boy, but universal health care is neither unaffordable, nor unattainable. We already spend more per person on healthcare than these socialist nations mentioned by others, while providing less care per person.
I believe the constitution should be amended to include health care provision as a function of the federal government.
We could simply refrain from three of our wars per century, and come out even (fiscally). Morally we come out way ahead.
Quote from: kells904 on December 23, 2011, 07:44:45 PM
Because most of those other countries don't have 300 million people living in them, JeffreyS. For all the successes of Tri-care, you don't hear about the failures. Losing paperwork, making mistakes, etc. For some, going to Medical was no big deal; for others it was a nightmare. But I don't think they're not doing their best; it's high customer volume. The more people a single entity has to serve, the more you're asking for disaster.
Oh really? You are actually quite uninformed. Not that these are advanced nations but China has universal healthcare and 1.3 billion people, and Brazil with 200 million people also has universal healthcare!!!!
QuoteBrazil
Main article: Health care in Brazil
The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988 after the end of the military regime's rule. However, free health care was available many years before, in some cities, once the 27th amendment to the 1969 Constitution imposed the duty of applying 6% of their income in healthcare on the municipalities.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Brazil
QuoteJan 22, 2009 â€" BEIJING â€" China announced that it intended to spend $123 billion by 2011 to establish universal health care for the country's 1.3 billion
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/asia/22iht-beijing.1.19590543.html
But somehow you'd like to withhold universal healthcare from your fellow citizens because the US "can't do it"
I thought the smurf reference would overpower the socialism reference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
I kinda see the fact that they aren't advanced nations as sort of important to the whole equation. Brazil ranks 39th and China comes in at 60th on a Quality of Life Index of 111 countries. So...maybe universal healthcare is the greatest thing ever in China and Brazil, while everything else sucks. Maybe universal healthcare in China mad Brazil sucks equally as much as everything else. I don't know; I'll bet we could find something that makes both arguments and we can go back and forth all day. But my heart's not into it. Yeah, I'll concede to being "uninformed" if you want me to. Whatever. I'm not arguing the merits of a UHC system; I've said that a couple times already.
America suffers from voter fraud, welfare fraud, tax fraud, a southern border that we can't seem to (or don't want to) control, a population far too into self-gratification to care that they're eating themselves into early graves. We've got several other, innumerable issues, including high school graduates who can't even properly put together a sentence, in the ONLY language they've been using since birth. I think we've regressed overall as a people; the Steve Jobses of the world cast such a big shadow that they hide the hordes of underachieving sheeple. Everybody can't be Steve Jobs, but people also seem to be too nice to admit we're carrying dead weight. No, health care for all is not unaffordable, nor unattainable. Again, not arguing the merits of the idea. But what I don't share with you guys is your optimism that it would function properly. You can build the safest car in history, but if you have idiots driving it, it's still going to get wrecked at some point. You want those con artists in Washington to handle something as important as your body? I sure don't. THAT is my main concern. I'd also expect people to drag the system down, from scamming the crap out of it.
We unfortunately have bigger fish to fry, IMO.
Quote from: kells904 on December 23, 2011, 12:56:55 PM
You had me until you said "Universal Health Care", Faye.
It's a pie-in-the-sky concept, like ending world hunger. It sounds fantastic, but it's not realistic. One size never fits all, not even the hats that claim. If obesity is a disease, it's a desease of the mind. Not knowing you ate too much, or that woofing down half a pack of Oreos is bad for you. It's only hereditary in the sense that fat children tend to have fat parents (or lazy parents).
And what about medical facilities' collective fear of getting sued? Doesn't that also play into the cost of care? Precautionary measures, running tests, administrators, paperwork, beaurocratic red tape...$$.
And you want the government to handle to your health care? The government seems awfully fond of banning things. Through the eyes of an official, I would think the most efficient means of achieving the goal of affordable health care is to control what goes into people's bodies. Don't we have enough proof that there are things the government should keep its hands OFF of?
We have relatively crappy healthcare compared the comparable portions of the developed/industrialized world (e.g., Europe) with socialized medicine, if you really get into it. They have healthier populations, better access to healthcare, easier approval process for new treatments, lower wait times, pretty much any given metric you want to name. And aside from Greece, all their economies are doing far better than ours.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 23, 2011, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: kells904 on December 23, 2011, 12:56:55 PM
You had me until you said "Universal Health Care", Faye.
It's a pie-in-the-sky concept, like ending world hunger. It sounds fantastic, but it's not realistic. One size never fits all, not even the hats that claim. If obesity is a disease, it's a desease of the mind. Not knowing you ate too much, or that woofing down half a pack of Oreos is bad for you. It's only hereditary in the sense that fat children tend to have fat parents (or lazy parents).
And what about medical facilities' collective fear of getting sued? Doesn't that also play into the cost of care? Precautionary measures, running tests, administrators, paperwork, beaurocratic red tape...$$.
And you want the government to handle to your health care? The government seems awfully fond of banning things. Through the eyes of an official, I would think the most efficient means of achieving the goal of affordable health care is to control what goes into people's bodies. Don't we have enough proof that there are things the government should keep its hands OFF of?
Why is it pie in the sky every modern country does it but us. Are we so inferior to other countries?
Frankly, yes.
Quote from: kells904 on December 24, 2011, 11:25:09 AM
I thought the smurf reference would overpower the socialism reference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
I kinda see the fact that they aren't advanced nations as sort of important to the whole equation. Brazil ranks 39th and China comes in at 60th on a Quality of Life Index of 111 countries. So...maybe universal healthcare is the greatest thing ever in China and Brazil, while everything else sucks. Maybe universal healthcare in China mad Brazil sucks equally as much as everything else. I don't know; I'll bet we could find something that makes both arguments and we can go back and forth all day. But my heart's not into it. Yeah, I'll concede to being "uninformed" if you want me to. Whatever. I'm not arguing the merits of a UHC system; I've said that a couple times already.
America suffers from voter fraud, welfare fraud, tax fraud, a southern border that we can't seem to (or don't want to) control, a population far too into self-gratification to care that they're eating themselves into early graves. We've got several other, innumerable issues, including high school graduates who can't even properly put together a sentence, in the ONLY language they've been using since birth. I think we've regressed overall as a people; the Steve Jobses of the world cast such a big shadow that they hide the hordes of underachieving sheeple. Everybody can't be Steve Jobs, but people also seem to be too nice to admit we're carrying dead weight. No, health care for all is not unaffordable, nor unattainable. Again, not arguing the merits of the idea. But what I don't share with you guys is your optimism that it would function properly. You can build the safest car in history, but if you have idiots driving it, it's still going to get wrecked at some point. You want those con artists in Washington to handle something as important as your body? I sure don't. THAT is my main concern. I'd also expect people to drag the system down, from scamming the crap out of it.
We unfortunately have bigger fish to fry, IMO.
Your chart is from 2007 data.
I don't suppose anything has happened that would have changed the U.S.'s quality of life rating since 2007, has it?
No financial meltdown? No quadrupling of unemployment? Nothing rings a bell?
Quote from: kells904 on December 24, 2011, 11:25:09 AM
I thought the smurf reference would overpower the socialism reference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
I kinda see the fact that they aren't advanced nations as sort of important to the whole equation. Brazil ranks 39th and China comes in at 60th on a Quality of Life Index of 111 countries. So...maybe universal healthcare is the greatest thing ever in China and Brazil, while everything else sucks. Maybe universal healthcare in China mad Brazil sucks equally as much as everything else. I don't know; I'll bet we could find something that makes both arguments and we can go back and forth all day. But my heart's not into it. Yeah, I'll concede to being "uninformed" if you want me to. Whatever. I'm not arguing the merits of a UHC system; I've said that a couple times already.
America suffers from voter fraud, welfare fraud, tax fraud, a southern border that we can't seem to (or don't want to) control, a population far too into self-gratification to care that they're eating themselves into early graves. We've got several other, innumerable issues, including high school graduates who can't even properly put together a sentence, in the ONLY language they've been using since birth. I think we've regressed overall as a people; the Steve Jobses of the world cast such a big shadow that they hide the hordes of underachieving sheeple. Everybody can't be Steve Jobs, but people also seem to be too nice to admit we're carrying dead weight. No, health care for all is not unaffordable, nor unattainable. Again, not arguing the merits of the idea. But what I don't share with you guys is your optimism that it would function properly. You can build the safest car in history, but if you have idiots driving it, it's still going to get wrecked at some point. You want those con artists in Washington to handle something as important as your body? I sure don't. THAT is my main concern. I'd also expect people to drag the system down, from scamming the crap out of it.
We unfortunately have bigger fish to fry, IMO.
Expect more, Demand more this country is run very competently. The problem is our political is currently serving it's corporate masters very well. With a little political finance reform it could serve the constituents just as well.
http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011
I don't really like this list because it's broken down by city. Even so, you get an idea of which countries have the most representation, putting several other countries ahead of the U.S. But if it's even possible at all to make apples-to-apples comparisons on health care--the reason I believe that Brazil and China were brought up--those two places are nowhere to be found on this list. Places with far smaller populations than the U.S. dominate the top spots, but that falls in line with what I was saying: "quality access for all" is easier to pull off when "all" doesn't equal several hundred million.
I have a hard time, though, grasping the idea that things are so much better in Europe, when the news channels keep beating me over the head with talks about a "Eurozone Debt Crisis."
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 25, 2011, 09:29:02 AM
Expect more, Demand more this country is run very competently. The problem is our political is currently serving it's corporate masters very well. With a little political finance reform it could serve the constituents just as well.
Well, yeah...I expect elected officials to live their life as common people who serve their country for a few years, fully expecting to rejoin the working force, akin to jury duty. Term Limits. My personal preference is that city government had more power and influence than federal government. It's easier in my eyes to effectively govern.
But instead, we've got a ruling class, because the vast majority of voters have a very short memory, and the attention span of a gnat. They are simply looking out for #1, not the greater good, and are easily persuaded by hyperbole and sound bytes. We as a nation have come to expect the government to play the role of "Daddy". So we keep re-electing the same people. Politicians know all this, obviously. And non-political types are afraid to run, because they'll get chewed up and spit out by mudslinging career politicians.
So a whole lotta things have to change in a hurry, Jeffrey, to have an effectively-run country, where accountability is expected. A personal responsibility paradigm shift, that I don't believe ever happens until we reach a full-on crisis. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Quote from: buckethead on December 23, 2011, 08:10:12 PM
Kells, I love to sling the word socialism around as much as any red blooded American boy, but universal health care is neither unaffordable, nor unattainable. We already spend more per person on healthcare than these socialist nations mentioned by others, while providing less care per person.
I believe the constitution should be amended to include health care provision as a function of the federal government.
We could simply refrain from three of our wars per century, and come out even (fiscally). Morally we come out way ahead.
Agree BH...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 26, 2011, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: buckethead on December 23, 2011, 08:10:12 PM
Kells, I love to sling the word socialism around as much as any red blooded American boy, but universal health care is neither unaffordable, nor unattainable. We already spend more per person on healthcare than these socialist nations mentioned by others, while providing less care per person.
I believe the constitution should be amended to include health care provision as a function of the federal government.
We could simply refrain from three of our wars per century, and come out even (fiscally). Morally we come out way ahead.
Agree BH...
Of all the +1's I never thought I'd give, this is top of the list, but with that said...
+1
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 26, 2011, 06:38:18 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 26, 2011, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: buckethead on December 23, 2011, 08:10:12 PM
Kells, I love to sling the word socialism around as much as any red blooded American boy, but universal health care is neither unaffordable, nor unattainable. We already spend more per person on healthcare than these socialist nations mentioned by others, while providing less care per person.
I believe the constitution should be amended to include health care provision as a function of the federal government.
We could simply refrain from three of our wars per century, and come out even (fiscally). Morally we come out way ahead.
Agree BH...
Of all the +1's I never thought I'd give, this is top of the list, but with that said...
+1
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Chris! I have ALWAYS said... if healthcare is a right... we need to amend the Constitution to make it so...
If you are really worried about our National Debt, cast your vote for President accordingly!!
(http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/assets_c/2012/01/F&Atimeline-thumb-570x300-60057.png)
Figure 1: Criminal Health Care Fraud Prosecutions over the last 20 years
Members of Congress of both parties often complain about fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid (M&M), usually charging that the President is not doing enough to keep bad guys from stealing money from these vital programs.
Guess what? Thanks to provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA/ObamaCare) and to an unprecedented effort by the Obama Administration, more progress has been made in the past three years to combat health care fraud and abuse than ever before. There was a 68.9 percent increase in criminal health care fraud prosecutions from 2010 to 2011, and 2010 was already the highest ever. See the chart below, released last month by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. (Note: NPR did a fine piece on this topic last Friday.)
Everybody knows there is a lot of fraud in M&M, though no one really knows how much. In the 1990s, the FBI made a back-of-the-envelope calculation of 10%, a never-validated estimate which has assumed undeserved biblical truth status. There's a lot, no doubt. Back in 1997, the New York Times reported that crime families were dropping drugs, prostitution, and gambling to get into health insurance fraud because the money was so much easier to steal.
Someone once told me the most successful day in the history of the Internal Revenue Service was the day they sent Martha Stewart to jail -- because so many folks had the thought, "if they will send Martha to jail, why would they treat me any better?" Same with these stats -- it is not just the numbers who get caught and go to jail -- and one bad guy was sent up the river for 50 years -- it's everyone out there who now realizes they have a bigger chance of getting caught.
The Justice Department and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health & Human Services lead the federal effort. I worked on private health insurance fraud issues during my time working on the ACA in the U.S. Senate and saw the construction of the health reform law's anti-fraud provisions from the inside. It was the professionals from DOJ and OIG who set the agenda -- and the smart anti-fraud provisions that were written into Title VI of the ACA are paying off.
Part of the effort involves hyper-charged efforts to catch bad guys through the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), and a bigger part involves re-engineering the system to keep them out. For example, prior to the ACA, if a bad guy got kicked out of one state Medicaid program for fraud, he got kicked out of one program; under the ACA, when he gets kicked out of one, and he gets kicked out of all them, including Medicare. That's smart, and that's just a tiny bit of what the ACA does on fraud & abuse.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2012/01/obamacare_is_winning_the_fight.html
Third time is the charm!!
After Arnold Schwartzenegger vetoed this bill twice after being passed by both houses of the CA legislature............the fight for single-payer healthcare in CA is on again!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 19, 2012
CONTACT: Ali Bay (916) 651-4003
Senator Leno’s Single-Payer Health Care Bill Clears Senate Appropriations
SB 810 Creates a Private-Public Partnership That Provides Universal Coverage
By Redirecting the Funds Californians Already Spend on Health Care
SACRAMENTO â€" The Senate Appropriations Committee today approved the California Universal Health Care Act, authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). Senate Bill 810 guarantees all Californians comprehensive, universal health care while reducing the state’s ballooning health care costs and improving the quality of care and delivery of health services statewide. The legislation passed with a 6-2 vote.
California currently spends about $200 billion annually on a fragmented, inefficient health care system that wastes 30% of every dollar on administration. Under Senate Bill 810, that wasteful spending is eliminated. The bill redirects the funds Californians already spend on health care to allow comprehensive coverage. In fact, studies show that the state would save $8 billion in the first year under this single-payer plan.
“California is being overrun by out-of-control health care costs, which have a significant impact on families, businesses and the state budget,†said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. “Health care premiums in the last few years have grown five times faster than our economy. Consequently, fewer employers are providing health benefits to their employees, and those workers who are fortunate enough to receive coverage are paying higher premiums for diminishing services. By guaranteeing universal access for all Californians, our single-payer plan will reduce the health care burdens that are hurting families and our state’s economy.â€
SB 810 creates a private-public partnership to provide every California resident medical, dental, vision, hospitalization and prescription drug benefits and allows patients to choose their own doctors and hospitals.
This single payer, “Medicare for All,†type of program works by pooling together the money that government, employers and individuals already spend on health care and putting it to better use by cutting out the for-profit middle man.
"SB 810 is the only proposed solution to the continuing patient care crisis that guarantees healthcare for all Californians and controls costs while eliminating the denials of care and restrictions of provider choice imposed by private insurance companies,†said DeAnn McEwen, a registered nurse at Long Beach Memorial Medical Center and co-president of the California Nurses Association. CNA is one of the co-sponsors of SB 810.
"Health is a right, not a privilege,†said Maria Lemus, executive director of Vision y Compromiso, a co-sponsor of SB 810. “All Californians, without exception, need access to quality medical services. Senator Leno's single-payer proposal would provide California residents access to health services with an opportunity to prevent illness, the right to choose their doctor and control inflation without increasing health care costs in California."
SB 810 is sponsored and supported by a broad coalition of patients, nurses, doctors, teachers and school employees, small businesses, faith community members, retirees, local governments and school districts. These groups represent more than 2 million Californians. The bill is co-sponsored by the California Nurses Association, Health Care for All California, California One Care, California School Employees Association, Physicians for a National Health Program-California, Single Payer Now, Campaign for a Healthy California, California Federation of Teachers, California Alliance of Retired Americans, Amnesty International, League of Women Voters, California Council of Churches, Progressive Democrats of America, California Consumer Federation, National Organization for Women-California, Vision y Compromiso, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, Dolores Huerta Foundation, California Health Professional Student Alliance and Courage Campaign.
# # #
Ali Bay, Press Secretary
Office of Senator Mark Leno
ali.bay@sen.ca.gov
916.651.4003
You know I have come on board the single payer bandwagon.
That said, some of the statements made from this camp are preposterous.
Namely "Health is a right, not a privilege".
How silly is that line? Rights are (supposed to be) guaranteed by the constitution. Health cannot be guaranteed.
I still have reservations about promising goods and services to every citizen without explicit instruction within the constitution. For states to adopt single payer is entirely appropriate, and the proper means of experimenting as we move towards amending the constitution to include health care provision as a function of the federal government.
Administration might be delegated to states, but funding should be federal and states would need to meet standards of care.
Yes it should say Health Care. Also I am for single payer to be put into the constitution if it is going to be implemented nationwide. I am not saying that it has to be in the constitution to be legal (I do not claim to know). I just think if we are going to do something that impactful on our government and way of life it is appropriate that it be first put in the constitution. Now if you see me support Universal care elsewhere and even without constitutional inclusion don't call me a hypocrite, inclusion is not a deal breaker for me.