Marketplace![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (28)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
GoogleIt is claimed that our health-care system is the best in the world, and it is -- if you are rich. Health-insurance premiums in Missouri are increasing at a rate four times that of wages, and private insurance for a family of four now averages over $12,000 a year. More than 200 Missourians and more than 14,000 Americans lose health-care coverage every day. Where 63 percent of workers used to be covered by employer-provided health care, the number has dropped to 56 percent and is falling fast. A recent report revealed that 62 percent of bankruptcies in our country are related to health-care costs, an increase of 50 percent from 2001 to 2007. Most families affected were middle-class homeowners with good-paying jobs and private health insurance coverage but were still overwhelmed by medical expenses. In another study, it was found that 25 percent of people had put off or failed to get vital health care when they needed it due to cost.
Families who planned well and thought they were covered by employer-provided or self-paid private insurance find themselves dumped by insurers after they become ill. In California, the state has sued numerous large insurers for unfair denial of coverage, and millions of Americans are rejected for coverage due to previously existing conditions. The Missouri State Insurance Department reports that of more than 2,700 formal complaints in the first half of 2009, most involved denial of claims by individual insurers.
Opponents of health-care reform are quick to deny these statistics and claim most Americans don't want reform. Yet polls from Quinnipiac, CBS/New York Times and NBC/Wall Street Journal all show overwhelming support for a public health-care option.
But statistics don't tell the entire story. At SEMO Alliance for Disability Independence, we see the pain and suffering of those affected by this crisis every day, including a growing population that has found itself in a devastating health-care black hole. These are people ages 55 to 65 who have worked hard all of their lives and find themselves out of work. They lose employer-provided insurance, can't get Medicare until they are 65, can't afford COBRA on unemployment benefits and, tragically, learn that age is treated as a pre-existing condition by private insurers who will soak them on premiums or refuse to cover them at all. Many face losing their homes and retirement benefits in order to pay medical bills.
Industry lobbyists portray private insurers as some sort of David threatened by the Goliath of a public health-care system. They claim competition would be eliminated, costing millions their health-care coverage. Yet, according to a study by the American Medical Association, health insurance is already a near monopoly in most markets, and "health insurers are posting historically high profit margins, while patient health-insurance premiums continue to rise without an expansion of benefits." Another favorite scare tactic of lobbyists is the notion that the government wants to dictate where, how and by whom you are treated and ration health care. But isn't that what private insurance companies are already doing?
A recent article rationalized the soaring cost of health care by saying we should expect to pay more because health care today is filet mignon compared to the hamburger that we use to get. But starving people do not insist on filet mignon. Right now, millions of Americans would be grateful for the hamburger of basic health care at a reasonable cost. If only filet is available, only the rich will eat, and increasingly the average American is priced out of the health-care market by soaring insurance premiums, overpriced durable medical equipment and outrageous prescription drug costs. Many are simply excluded by insurers who have a free hand in deciding who gets coverage and who isn't profitable.
America's health-care system can be compared to the sinking Titanic. The third-class passengers (the poor) on the lower decks have already drowned. The second-class passengers (the middle class) in the center of the ship are being inundated as the water rises higher. For the moment, the first-class passengers (the rich) are dry and happy on the upper deck, claiming the ship isn't sinking. A few passengers are lucky enough to occupy the life rafts (Medicare). All will sink if something isn't done.
To be sure, the shortage of primary-care physicians, out-of-control malpractice litigation and societal issues such as obesity, smoking and overuse of emergency rooms are issues that also cannot be left to fester. But lobbyists for the health insurance, durable medical equipment and prescription drug industries and others who reap huge profits from the existing mess are spending millions of dollars each day to steamroll Congress into maintaining the status quo. This is a fight that Americans cannot afford to lose to special interests. Their good health literally depends on it.
Will Richardson is director of outreach and education at the SEMO Alliance for Disability Independence in Cape Girardeau.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please 
My body is my property.
Mr. Richardson, your body is your property.
I wouldn't expect you to foot the bill to repair my beat up '94 Toyota Pickup anymore than you should expect me to pay a plumber to clean your septic tank.
The one group, that has the most at stake in this debate, as usual, is the working middle class. We have no representation in Washington. The doctors handle their politicians with cash, and the lower class provide votes.
That is why the only two choices for healthcare reform on the table are a complete forced government run program, or what we operate under now.
Nobody is advocating real, free market solutions.
I also find it ironic that both sides use the catchphrase "status quo" in an effort to undermine the other side's position.
You are all the status quo. The only cutting edge solution is a free market approach that was abandoned decades.
Well stated, Mr Richardson.
Without a doubt the current heal care system is failing to provide health care for a sizable group of Americans. However to think that the government can fix it is fantasy. Just like they fixed the education system, the banking system, and on and on.
CBO: 30% of uninsured were offered insurance by their employers and declined.
Can someone please tell me where is the TORT REFORM? The cost of litigation is the main factor that keeps driving up the prices. Everyone's doing extra tests and activities all to Cover Their A##es from law suits.
Who you gonna sue when the government is in charge of your healthcare? The government?
Some info on the FTCA...
"The King can do no wrong" was a maxim brought to America from England. It reflected the concept of sovereign immunity. In America, the notion of executive, or governmental, immunity was translated into statutes and incorporated into the jurisprudence of the new nation. One could not sue a state or one of its subdivisions, or the federal government, unless permission was given to so proceed in the courts. Obviously this led to unfairness and inequity for persons who were tortuously injured by agents of government.
The Federal Tort Claims Act, Title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, was passed by the Congress in an effort to reduce the adverse impact of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Additionally, it was designed to eliminate the practice of congresspersons introducing private relief bills for constituents who had been injured owing to government negligence. In it, the government gave its general consent to be sued in civil tort actions in federal court. It required a federal district court judge, sitting without a jury, to render judgment in these cases "under circumstances, where the United States government, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant for such damage loss, injury or death in accordance with the law of the place where the act or the omission took place." However, it placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff in a tort action; it also contained thirteen exceptions to governmental liability.
In 1953, in Dalehite v. United States, the Supreme Court interpreted the "discretionary function" exception in such a way that effectively ruled out most substantive tort actions against the government. In 1950, the justices created another exception to the FTCA when, in Feres v. U.S. (1950), they concluded that one injured while on active duty in the military could not sue the government under the FTCA. Given these and other precedents and little or no reaction to the Court's statutory interpretations by the Congress, the FTCA has not been a major benefit to persons injured or killed because of negligent actions of federal employees.
Okay, let's just identify the proverbial elephant in the room and that is the fact that government is incapable of producing any good, or service in an efficient manner, or with the citizens' best interest in mind.
If you believe otherwise, you either...
A. Work for the government
B. Stand to gain something financial from the program or,
C. Ate paint chips as a kid
Regardless of which side you stand on this issue, admit at least this much - government run health care will be a complete waste of taxpayer money.
That is why I ask the question, why is the free market not even an option to solve this problem?
I know the answer. I am a simple factory worker. With that in mind, realize that it doesn't take a professional to figure this stuff out.
Probably B is the most significant. Which goes for the recent energy program that was just passed by the House. If you stand to gain something then you will pay for a lobbyist to present your case,and grease the wheel, on the other hand the ones that will lose from this program do not have an organized movement to defeat it.
Re: B
Yeah, just ask Russ Carnahan's (D) (St. Louis Congressman) who voted for Cap and Trade whose brother is heavily invested in a wind farm.
This article represents exactly what I'm not hearing in the mainstream media. I recognize the government might not be the ideal solution in this scenario, however the alternative is totally unacceptable.
Insurance companies picking the most profitable people to cover and then denying claims once one of the lucky one's gets sick is criminal!
American's fell powerless to complain about the madness because they aren't directly involved in the choice, it's their employer who picked the insurance company and proposed policy based on what was best for them! The govt in this instance is actually offering to truly provide greater freedom and flexibility in the marketplace. The govt isn't going to staff doctors' offices or hospital ER's, its merely going to do its best to insure the "big boys" are playing fair with the admin and research costs and not extorting the American public.
Overall the economy will be better served once employers are relieved of the burden to provide such services. Employment freedom would follow making it easier for those who work to truly pursue the job of their dreams irrespective of health coverage.
I know govt run anything is a train wreck waiting to happen, but in this instance the train has already wrecked and if you haven't felt the concussion from the impact yet, hold on!
oh and let's not get on the "I wouldn't ask you to pay for my car repairs", type comments...in this country there are already far too many entitlements given to those who don't contribute. We can scrap all of them for all I care and just offer healthcare. I pay thousands in taxes every year for programs I would never benefit from. This program is the first one outside of our priveledge to pay taxes that would be truly geared for all Americans!
A new 'incomplete' analysis by congressional budget experts of emerging House legislation said it would increase deficits by $239 billion over a decade.
CBO does not score any savings from prevention / wellness and the rest, even if Prevention / wellness is an actual and essential part of the savings.
Besides, the Times in a July 7 editorial argued "As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in this country--some $700 billion a year--may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients," .
And I think the others such as increased productivity, potential stem cell effect, decreased mental stress, and massive job creation considered, the reform might be within reach.
The report of stem cell research turned around the stock markets world-wide, and then what if the reform package clears the Congress ?
I_Think,
Okay, I will put my philosophical differences aside on this issue. Will you?
Now, do you think that this new entitlement program will be run efficiently? The piggy bank is empty, and we gotta be frugal.
Also, nobody seems to want to address my other question which is why the free market is not even an option on any issue facing this country anymore.
Dear Will,
Right now about 84% of all health care services are paid for by a third party. A first year economics student can tell you that this is a broken economic model.
Here's why. If my employer, or government had to pay for 84% of my transportation needs I would be driving a new pickup, with all the bells and whistles, every two years. I would have a nice new Lincoln as well. Why not. I only have to make 16% of the payments. I wouldn't care very much about how much they cost. Same thing happens with health services. A ten minute consultation can cost $350. Who cares! Either my insurance company, or my employer pays for it. I don't care what it costs.
You laud employer sponsored health insurance. That is the source of the problem - not the fix.
Don
http://mtnhealthinsurance.com
Lumpy,
While I completely disagree with you on your argument against government sponsered health care I do agree completely that we need more than 2 choices. Free market would be the best choice for health care because it would make providers HAVE TO compete to keep their customers business. Just like auto insurance or home insurance or any other insurance, the market should be competative. This would cost nothing to do and would completely solve the problem.
The reason this doesn't happen is the same reason you can only vote for a republican or a demacrat. Sure they tell you you can vote independent, but the independent candidate never really has a shot. When this kind of power and money is at stake, the flow MUST be controlled. This is their way of controling health care. We only get two choices, both of which they can control and agree on between the two sides and we never really gain anything from it. But if we're let to believe we have a choice we only bicker at eachother and not at them.
With all that being said, I think it's a good idea to put the control in the governments hands becase at least then we have someone to blame with something to loose. You can't vote Anthem or United Healthcare out of office, they'll always be there. Give it someone we can hold acountable and at least then we can try and change things. The way things are we are powerless, and while I understand we don't have much more power the other way it's the only real shot we have at some change.
The government and Unions are in charge of managing our trains. kennedy-obama-dodd-pelosi healthcare is a trainwreck waiting to happen. Do we want obama and the Union in charge of our healthcare???????????????????????????????? How many train wrecks can we stand with obama?????
Let me see obama stimulus train wreck-only his buddies got stolen taxpayers money.
obama trainwreck busting the auto industry----------
obama-ACORN trainwreck busting the housing industry----
obama-schummmmmmmmer-geithner banking trainwreck-----
Tell obama, reid and pelosi when they stand on the steps of the Peoples Whitehouse and sign up for kennedy-obama healthcare then we will. oTHER WISE SHOVE YOUR HEALTHCARE TRAINWRECK WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE AND YOU WON'T NEED NO OVER PRICED SOLAR PANELS OR WINDMILLS THERE.
The government and Unions are in charge of managing our trains. kennedy-obama-dodd-pelosi healthcare is a trainwreck waiting to happen. Do we want obama and the Union in charge of our healthcare???????????????????????????????? How many train wrecks can we stand with obama?????
Let me see obama stimulus train wreck-only his buddies got stolen taxpayers money.
obama trainwreck busting the auto industry----------
obama-ACORN trainwreck busting the housing industry----
obama-schummmmmmmmer-geithner banking trainwreck-----
Tell obama, reid and pelosi when they stand on the steps of the Peoples Whitehouse and sign up for kennedy-obama healthcare then we will. oTHER WISE SHOVE YOUR HEALTHCARE TRAINWRECK WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE AND YOU WON'T NEED NO OVER PRICED SOLAR PANELS OR WINDMILLS THERE.
How many keendy, kerry, dole, Hatch, dodd, rangel, frank, peloski have been voted out of office.
mcampo it doesn't work only makes it worst tith the trainwreck kid obama in charge
This all begins with the overpriced cost of medical education. Next, we have the insurance companies operating as any other profit making entity, trying to make as much profit as they can. Next, we have out of control malpractice insurance. Then we have physicians who are trying to repay student loans, and cover the cost of malpractice insurance. The whole system is broken. If the government is going to step in, they need to jump in with both feet. Nationalize medical eduction, limit liability from those who agree to receive treatment, scrap malpractice insurance, nationalize health care with costs based on income, and see that medical staff are paid a decent salary commensurate with their training and experience. A big cultural shift is needed in the US.
Bobo,
Every administration has it's trainwrecks. I don't think that the government is incapable of messing up the healthcare system worse than it is, I'm sure it's possible. What I'm saying is that the system isn't working now, and this is the only other option we are being given. Don't forget that this adminstration inherrited most of the problems you mentioned.
Everything else aside, it's not like your going to go to city hall to get a physical. Your doctors will be the same doctors you have now. If your insured, the only change you'll see is a reduction in premiums and if your not insured, well now you'll have a good chance of being insured. That being the bottom line, what is everyone so affraid of. We have the worlds best medical facilitis here, all we're doing is letting more people into them. Obama would be on natinal health care. That is what you're not understanding, national health care means the whole nation.
Would someone tell me what the worst thing that could happen if we nationalize health insurance. Don't tell me what else is wrong with the world or this country. What whould be the worst thing and how likely would it be that it comes to that (whatever it is)? I really want to know. Does anyone actually know or does everyone just repeat the arguments they here on the news. Seriously people, do you actually have your own opinions???
Yes, a well stated argument - and a heck of a discussion in the comments. Way to go class. Y'all come to the next Tea Party!
The worst thing that could happen if healthcare is nationalized is a bloody revolution. But even that depends on your point of view, some of us may welcome open revolution.
I dismiss the arguments given from both branches of the Incumbent Party regarding UHC, as both are illogical, and only represent the views of the Party's handlers. Then they are spread by the government mouthpiece - the media - in order to add to the confusion, and an increasing feeling of helplesness among the citizenry.
Is it any wonder that there is serious talk of open revolution? There is nobody representing me in Washington. People have their backs against the wall. Fight or flight.
UHC will result in a transfer of wealth on an astronomical scale never seen before in this country, or any other. There are no "titans of industry" left in this country. They have either fled to other nations, or have ceased to exist. The only big buisness that remains in this country are those that play the game by the rules, and now have a place at the government table. They employ our elected officials to pass legislation that will benefit themselves. This is the primary reason that our current health care system is in such need of replacement.
The working middle class will pay for this debacle, as we pay for every debacle rolled out of Washington. What remains of our small buisness community will disappear. There will be nothing of value produced in this country as we move towards a government service based economy. Eventually the middle class will be unable to sustain the burdon any longer. There will be two classes remaining: the ruling elite, and the ruled.
Now, that doesn't sound so bad does it.
Good grief lumpy, can we please all move past this tired piece of fiction that the Republicans pull out any time anyone suggests the government do something useful? "The government can't do anything right!". Yeah, that's why we only trust them to deal with little unimportant things they can't hurt anyone with, like the nuclear stockpile. God forbid we allow them to offer people health insurance, Armageddon would shortly follow!
And maybe if we stopped electing people to run the government who thought the government wasn't good for anything then the government might be put to better use, hmmm? It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy when you place people in charge of the enterprise who think it isn't worth using to accomplish anything because the private sector will take care of it all themselves and then lo and behold the government doesn't accomplish anything! It's like these people are prophets or something!
You want to deal with facts? How about we actually look at them instead of spouting political talking points from the Reagan era? Like the fact that pretty much every other nation on the planet employs higher degrees of pubic sector involvement in their health care systems than the US does... and by *wild coincidence* I'm sure every single one of them runs a far more cost effective system. It isn't even a contest. And they do it while generating health outcomes comparable to those in the US and covering their entire populations.
And nobody is advocating free market solutions because they're not suicidal. The free market is a wonderful thing if you want to provide a nation with a supply of steel, or lumber, or cars, or vegetables... or name your consumer product, the free market is very very good at meeting those needs efficiently. But the free market is HORRENDOUS at providing insurance. It's very very good at turning a profit on it, no argument there, but it does so by doing everything in it's power to sell health insurance to people who don't need it and deny service to people who do need it. Because selling health insurance isn't like selling any of those other things. If you deal in any of those other products you WANT the person who uses your services the most as a customer. They're great customers. You want to give them everything they need because the more they use the more they pay you.
How is this different than health insurance lumpy? Think it over for a few seconds, it should come to you pretty quick.
People who use the most medical services COST insurance companies money. They're the people who need the coverage the most but no insurance company wants these people as customers. The profit motives in the insurance industry are turned around perfectly BACKWARDS to what they are in other consumer markets. All the incentive for the insurance industry is to DENY you care because every extra bit of care you use lowers their profit margins. and these are the people you want to place fully in charge of deciding what care you do and do not receive? The people who get a bigger paycheck the less care you get? Are you out of our mind? Have you not seen how private insurance companies operate ion this country? Do you live under a rock by any chance?
And as for not imposing on one person to pay for anything for anyone else... yeah, great idea. Also, let's abolish the fire department. Because there is no way I should have to pay those guy's salaries just so they can put out the fire at some guy's house I never met! I'll just... ummm... hire my own private fire fighting company who will be on call just in case my house goes up in flames.
Also, the police department absolutely needs to go. I've never even talked to one of those guys, I never see one stanidng guard outside my house... so what good are they to me??? I shouldn't have to pay for these people!!! I'll just hire personal bodyguards!
And same goes for the military!!!
Get a clue lumpy, some things benefit all of society, and it's more cost effective to spread the costs for them around. That's why we have governments instead of living in a state of semi anarchic free-for-all where everyone is only looking out for themselves. Health care is one of those things that is more effectively provided collectively.
Anything is better than what we have now. We have tried it the old way for as long as I've been alive. I'm tired of this have or have not society. The old pull yourself up by the bootstraps, Newt Rockne b.s. is solely a game of chance in this world. Somebody explain to me how 90 percent of america wealth is in the pockets of 5 percent of the population. And i'm not talking about the "Big" money we have here in SE missouri, I'm talking the scale of hundreds of millions. Insurance companies have become immensely wealtyh on the backs of the 95 percent of the have nots. This little corner of missouri has no idea what kind of money these people make. I lived in one of the wealthiest parts of Suburban Chicago and saw the excess first hand. It boggles the mind. I look around here at those that supposedly have money and it makes me laugh. you have no idea...
I totally agree with you gcomeau. We have so many other public services that we are already paying for. You pay school tax for your school district weather you have kids in school or not. How is this different? We need afordable health care, end of story!
And lumpy...a revolution...seriously??? You seemed like a guy with something to say when this forum opened and now I feel like dismissing everything you've said. If the WTC conspiracy didn't bring about a revolution, I surely don't think something like providing human services will.
I will tell you this. There is a much more urgent and immediate list of things that could go wrong if health care stays the same. Immagine something like swine flu breaks out in a place where no one has insurance. Something a simple vacination could cure would wipe out an entire city; all so middle america can live more comfortably. I'm sorry, but I live pretty well and I am perfectly fine with doing my part. It's a shame your not...
God, this is gonna be easy.
I am now a Great American!
I was reading about the republican agenda to slow down and eventually stop the healthcare reform and it finally hit me. I understand why republicans are sooooo against health care reform. You don't care at all about the issue. You want to be able to say that this administration promissed reform and didn't deliver. You couldn't stand to deal with someone running a campaign based on promisses they kept. You lost the election last year because you didn't deliver on any of the promisses that were made and now the dems have the chance to make a difference, and you don't want to look like the *** when we're the ones being represented by a donkey!
It was hard for me to understand why anyone would oppose a change in health care, so excuse me for not realizing the real issue sooner. It's all about polotics to you, not even the slightest care for the well being of your fellow man. I don't care if they actually elected real elephants and donkeys to be the president as long as we were moving in the right direction as a country. You refuse to adopt new polocy because you're afraid of what might happen. If we don't do something than we have to deal with what will happen! Put the politics aside and tell me you don't think this would be a better country with national health coverage. How could you not see the benifit it would provide us even from a global perspective. Other nations might stop looking at us like we're the arrigant, self-rightious, bullies of the world.
I'm open to hear other suggestions and ideas to this issue, but no one has any. You mentioned free market, but as previously posted, there would be no way to keep private health care owners honest. We need this, so stop making it a talking point for why someone should or shouldn't get elected or re-elected and make a difference.
This spring, due to the demand decrease, the highest fuel price came down below $40 per barrel, though, the 'similar' insurance premiums still go on rising, which may imply that health care is not optional, but essential, and the inaction could bankrupt family, business, and government beyond this recession, as all across the board agree.
Earlier, the revised HELP BILL with the public option and employer mandatory has got a green light from the CBO, yet still, a new 'incomplete' analysis of emerging House legislation said it would increase deficits by $239 billion over a decade.
But, CBO does not score any savings from prevention / wellness and the rest, even as Prevention / Wellness is an actual and essential part of the savings, without which the reform would be meaningless.
And I think the other things such as increased productivity / consumer confidence, 'potential stem cell effect', 'decreased mental stress', and 'massive job creation', 'stock price effect' and etc considered, the reform might be within reach. Most importantly, a few years later, if the excessive war and military spending goes toward the health care program, the cost issue does not matter at all, I think.
Edward M. Kennedy argues, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, "Everyone won't be satisfied and no one will get everything they want. But we need to come together, just as we've done in other great struggles in World War II and the Cold War, in passing the great civil-rights laws of the 1960s, and in daring to send a man to the moon. If we don't get every provision right, we can adjust and improve the program next year or in the years to come. What we can't afford is to wait another generation."
Thank You For Reading !
This is one of the best articles that I have ever read. I am wondering why the GOP and some democrats are so much against the health care reform. Is it money or corporate greed more important than saving lives? Obviously, these extremist republicans will rather see people die than to have health care reform in this country. For them it is all about money, politics, greed and status quo but not the well-being of the average citizen. Not only that, I also believe they may be feeling a sense of jealousy and envy against the commander in chief. This health care reform is about the American people and not the president. He wants to pass this bill not because of his own glory or pride but because it is the right thing for America. I wish Rush Limbaugh and his fellow republicans could understand this! This is just common sense.