16 responses so far ↓

• 1 Ed Marksberry // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:10 am

  Senator Mitch McConnell where is your better plan for health care reform? Right now health insurance is costing a family of four about $13,000 (not to mention the $5000 deductable) a year. Now if you have a preexisting condition, you might not be eligible for coverage or must pay a more exorbitant premium. Do you know what we get for the high cost of health care?

  The U.S. ranks 37 (right next to Slovenia) of 191 countries.

  The U.S. spends at least twice as much as any other country on health care.

  In 1960 we spent 5%of GDP towards health care; in 2008 it was of our 17% GDP.

  Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 131 percent.

  I know one thing Senator McConnell could do to help heath care cost, why not give the $500,000 (since 2007)you got from the 14 health care groups and their 127 lobbyists to the families with real health care needs.

• 2 Ed Marksberry // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:07 am

  This ad about the new OMHS hospital community feed back;
  Here is some feedback the community is asking;
  Why put the hospital within a block of a large petroleum storage facility?
  Why put the hospital within three blocks of a new Kentucky “Super Fund” environmental cleanup site? This was caused by a large leaking petroleum pipeline that runs underground from where a barge offloading site pumps petroleum to the storage facility. This leak has caused the city to shut down (because of contamination) one of its artesian wells that supplies drinking water to the public.
  Why put the hospital next a major rail road switching yard? What if there is a hazardous spill from the railcars?
  Why put the hospital next to a sewage treatment facility?
  Why put the hospital in a floodplain?
  What about the newly founded problem with the seismologist report stating the soil is quicksand? How much more will it cost to insure earthquake proof foundation? Is this why the footprint is smaller than originally designed?
  What if you don’t get the expanding market increase (East of Owensboro to Lousiville) that is critical to sustain the cost of the new hospital?

• 3 E // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:49 am

  The U.S. ranks 37 (right next to Slovenia) of 191 countries.

  In what categories?

• 4 eric schansberg // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:10 am

  I just finished a 38-page paper on market-based health care reform– moving away from the heavily regulated and subsidized status quo. Little of it is original; it’s a compilation of stuff from the academic and practitioner literature.

  The reforms there would deal quite ably with pre-existing conditions and the cost of insurance. (The stats on the U.S. $ and health outcomes are profoundly flawed for a number of reasons.)

  Unfortunately, political realities (at least for the Fall), reluctance in the public to move dramatically from the status quo (as we’ve seen with opposition to ObamaCare and variants), and probably a lack of political imagination stand in the way. It’ll be interesting to see what happens after this recent effort fades/resolves.

• 5 Ed Marksberry // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:31 am

  Responding to E, check out this link;
  http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

• 6 Novena // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:59 am

  “The Facts on U.S. Health Care vs. the Myths”

  Ed Marksberry, many thanks for sharing the real data with all of us. I had pointed to the World Health Organization’s study (which placed the U.S. #37th in the world and spelled out the categories in its report several times to this blog group). Maybe the people on it who oppose universal heath care coverageand the public option will finally wake up to the realities instead of dreaming of fantasies. We are a desperately greedy nation that puts GREED above all else–above health care, education, and most all other social needs. They would rather rant on about “Socialism” instead of solving real-world problems. Don’t drive, don’t send your kids to public schools, don’t accept Medicare or Medicaid, don’t use a VA hospital, don’t use public parks or forests. All examples of American-made “Socialism.” Right?

• 7 Suzanne // Oct 22, 2009 at 11:03 am

  I sent McConnell an email two weeks ago sharing my support for a public option and asking him to quit running his mouth on the Sunday talk shows.

  I haven’t heard from him yet. Strange.

• 8 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Oct 22, 2009 at 11:21 am

  The People have spoken on the Public Option.

  Dear Congress: Pass it!

• 9 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Oct 22, 2009 at 11:32 am

  An honest, not a trick question for Novena and Ed:

  As you know Novena, I have always been very respectful in our disagreements and I am curious what you an Ed think fundamentally.

  Let’s put the equity issues aside, which were heavily weighted in the 2000 WPO study rankings.

  Do you think the level of care (by that I mean; responsiveness, access to the best doctors and technology, and innovation) currently received by those who are currently under privately-administered plans and in a capitalistic-run health care system, will be the same under a more social non-profit government-run plan?

  If you feel the level may be reduced, do you feel that it is a fair trade-off for better equity?

  I think it is really at the crux of the discussion, and the tough decision we as a society have to make. I don’t think there is an easy answer.

  I’m not saying one side is correct and one is wrong, I am just asking if you are willing to wait longer or forgo some high-end treatment options so more people can access?

  I personally struggle with that question when weighing the reality of the situation.

  Just curious of your thoughts.

• 10 Conservative // Oct 22, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  Actually, Novena, roads are one of the few things government does that is specifically authorized by the Constitution. “Post offices and post roads,” anyone?

• 11 Ed Marksberry // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:06 pm

  Mark H, I know how you feel, I too have had to weigh in what differences will be the outcome of this, but after much research I have found that affordable healthcare is a right of everybody and should be available to everyone. What greater way can a nation show its worth of those who reside in it. Thomas Jefferson once said “ health is worth more than learning”.

• 12 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm

  To quote Henry Ford, “Failure is only the opportunity to begin again, only this time more wisely.”

  I think the past record of the US Congress supports my fear is that we are not going to to do this more wisely.

  In the end, we aren’t going to get as far as we would like in covering everyone, and at the same time, we are going to force a lower level of care on everyone else.

  Without seeing a final bill and having to time to understand it’s costs and benefits, it’s difficult for me to make that analysis.

  If there is a treatment that would have been available for my 2 year old son ten years from now and he dies, but for the financial incentive to development that treatment was removed to provide care for everyone, we better damn well be giving care to everyone.

  To complicate the moral question even further, the variable that is difficult to quantify is the impact to world health of the elimination of the health treatment subsidies that we provide to the world.

  It is a fact that our capitalistic heath care system accounts for the vast majority of world innovation in medical technology and pharmaceuticals.

  By taking some of the financial incentives away that currently exist in our system, are there drugs or technology that won’t be developed which could have say cured malaria, or HIV or other diseases that decimate 3rd world countries?

  Will drug companies raise the cost of drugs to other world countries making them less affordable if the profits currently made off the US system are reduced?

  The moral ground is not as easy to find as it would first appear. I’m not sure we really know what the positive and negative outcomes will be. My experience tells me that when you try to do more at once, you understand the impacts (positive and negative) less.

• 13 Novena // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:36 pm

  “Hail to England and Canada on Health Care”

  Mark, I do respect your views and the gracious way you typically present them. I have friends and in-laws who live in England and Canada. They all prefer the medical care and coverage there as compared to the U.S. In England, they actuallly receive receipts for transportation expenses to and from hospitals and medical clinics. Never happen here. Also, no one goes bankrupt in Europe over going broke from expensive medical care.
  P.S. A friend had a terrible car accident in New Zealand a few years ago, was laid up in hospital for weeks, and had multiple operations. She paid nada (and is a U. S. citizen who was just traveling in that country). Capitalist greed is in the evil part of our heart compared to many other nations.

• 14 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:14 pm

  Thank you and I agree with you that New Zealand and Australia do have very good systems, but they have very different populations and demographics than we do. Also, you have to admit that our evil greed has produced a lot of the innovation and pharmaceuticals that the rest of the world benefits from.

  We could easily afford 1985-era medicine, we can’t afford 2009-era medicine. Maybe we just hit the ceiling of what we can afford?

• 15 eric schansberg // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:05 am

  Here’s a piece on some of the flaws in the WHO study:
  http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236

  Another data point: Singapore has better health outcomes than most developed countries but spends less than those with (more) socialized medicine.

  Govt’s role in health care has increased dramatically over the last 40 years. At minimum, their greater involvement has been correlated with higher costs and more problems.

• 16 E // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:37 am

  In that overly subjective WHO report I didn’t notice anything about lifestyle choices. Truth be told, if we weren’t fat and lazy with lots of bad habits like smoking, and lots of other factors like accidents (driving), and dysfunctional behaviors (drug abuse/suicide)…the burden on the health delivery system and insurance system would be greatly reduced.
  The question also needs to be asked…when do we assign more blame to our failed government run education system ? Simple fact is, we don’t turn out enough well prepared well educated young people to fulfill the need for health professionals. I guess since that’s already run by government, it’s off limits and not in need of being overhauled….abysmal failure or not.
  It’s worth noting that in most studies our math and science proficiency levels tend to land in similar ranks…coincidence?

Leave a Comment