"We've got to do it the American way," Giuliani said during a town hall forum in Rochester, New Hampshire. "The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That's a European way of doing something; that's frankly a socialist way of doing something."
"That's why when you hear Democrats in particular talk about single-mandated health care, universal health care, what they're talking about is socialized medicine."
Giuliani's health care plan, unveiled at the forum, includes giving taxpayers tax credits to purchase private health insurance. The highlight of Giuliani's plan: a $15,000 tax deduction for each family to buy private health insurance.
There's where you find Rudy doing one thing that Kerry didn't during the 2004 election: Come up with, and explain your game plan. Americans want a lot of things for "free", but many of them don't understand that nothing is free, it's paid for out of their pockets in terms of taxes.
I don't want to pay more taxes because some idiot with a head cold decides that an emergency room visit is a better idea then taking some NyQuil and going to bed. I don't want to pay more in taxes because some irresponsible woman decides that she doesn't want to have any contraceptives and then she pops out her 5th child.
Giuliani came to the table with an idea, which is one of the things that Kerry didn't do. Kerry took out the old "vote for me and I'll make things better" route, and people aren't comfortable in dealing with unknowns. With Giuliani's plan, you at least have a general idea.
Now of course I'm going to get hate mail from people who say "well I pay taxes too and I want socialized medicine". Well that's fine, then you can pay my portion of the taxes as well.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
6 comments:
Those of you who use "socialized medicine" as a term of abuse need to remember that Europe spends much less on healthcare than the US, but provides it free to all who need it. Civilized societies grant medical treatment at point of delivery according to need, not ability to pay. As long as the US places profits over need in its healthcare system, it is not a member of the civilized community of nations.
Perhaps Europe really does spend less on health care then the US does, but where do you suppose most medical advances come from? The US. And I don't know what your hospitals do, but every hospital I've been at has taken care of worse injuries first, not ability to pay. EVERY HOSPITAL. I've been to dozens because of accidents and friends who are accident prone and a few of them didn't have insurance and they were still taken care of.
In my state (Washington) we have Washington Basic Health. It's health insurance for the poor. So if I go to a hospital because of a car accident or something, I'm going to be taken care of regardless of if I have insurance or not.
Personally, I don't give a rip if you consider the US as a "member of civilized community of nations". We have a much more advanced medical community then most nations because we spend so much on health care. How do you suppose those $5 million dollar MRI machines get paid for? How do you suppose we can take a look at the human body at any angle transparently without the need to cut open the person?
I have been extremely conservative with my data, without a doubt the the people in charge have access to better information, but the math works and the formula is sound.
There are, in excess of, 150 million workers in the United states today. Reports show that 84% have some type of health insurance, that is 125 million, again to be conservative lets say that 100 million people have health insurance and between medical and dental benefits pay $100 a month into their plans. This is $10 billion dollars available for universal health care, each month or $120 billion per year. This is raised simply by translating current insurance premiums into an additional payroll tax for healthcare. Business pay in 5 to 8 times that cost in premiums, if there were similarly taxed for healthcare at 4 times the individual cost this would raise another $480 billion annually. $600 billion a year, with no additional costs and with significant savings to the people and employers. By making a universal health care program a non-profit entity and using the Canadian system as an example (They have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more nurses and doctors per capita yet fewer dollars spent per capita on health costs) by setting the cost per capita at $3000 per year for health costs. This leaves an additional $300 billion to be raised. While this is a seemingly daunting amount, the funds are already allocated for Universal healthcare under the Medicare payroll tax. $900 billion dollars, conservatively is available annually to pay for a universal healthcare package so that every citizen and legal resident of the United States can go to a doctor or a dentist as needed without any out of pocket cost for preventative health care, health maintenance or catastrophic injury, with a mandatory acceptance of this insurance by every practicing physician and health worker. This amount exceeds even the most outrageous estimates provided by those both for and against universal coverage. (Although I do not know why any politician would be 'pro-death due to lack of health care") As always, should an individual choose to purchase additional health coverage they could do so, existing health insurance companies can fight for their business. All of this done without tax increases or additional costs to businesses or taxpayers. Keep in mind that this is a conservative estimate of dollars available while covering the latest estimates of US population. Should such a program be implemented ,all workers paying into the program and all business matching 2 to 8 times thier employee's contributions (based on business size and number of employees, just as such insurance premiums are based now) this would provide funds in excess of $1.5 trillion dollars would likely be available. The funding is there already, it need only be tapped. Basic health care should not be a for profit business. If you need to call it National Healthcare to sidestep the politicizing of socialized medicine whatever it takes. I have insurance for my family and still cannot afford to see the doctor or dentist. This could be implemented in less than a single term. Because it would be a mandatory tax, all other health insurance options would be voluntary for businesses and individuals. Small businesses would be better able to participate.
As I said at the start, I am sure all of this information and more accurate numbers are available to the those in office. I'm a layman, but I think this could work and I think that Americans would accept such coverage readily since it would cost them no more and likely less than what they are paying now. Hospitals would know they are getting paid for providing necessary treatments and by taking the for-profit nature out of the mix, cost of healthcare will be reduced. The administrative body needed for such a program would be one that determines only if the care is necessary to maintain good health or is purely cosmetic or elective. No injury or sickness should go untreated for lack of coverage. For those against such coverage, I demand an answer: why?
The American way is to let Men women and children die for lack of health care coverage, or worse yet, have coverage and because a procedure is not cost efficient have it be denied. Where do you think a $15000 tax cut is going to come from? Medical advances happen here and will continue to do so, they are not funded by the insurance companies. Once you take the insurance company profits out of the equation health care cost go down. The quality of care available is not what affected here, it is who pays the bill, one way or the other we are going to pay for our health care, I for one, would like the most for my money and not line an insurance company execs pocket along the way. Keep in mind, NOT providing coverage is how they make thier money. They depend on you paying yoru premiums and not using the service. Insurance companies are not there to assist you. I'd rather have a government body administer the money and use more of it to provide all the essential care I need, wihtout co-pays or limits.
Thank you Louis for your well thought out, detailed, rational opinion.
That being said, my main concerns over universal health care, in whatever form, is abuse and waiting lists where there used to be none. I've heard my fair share of stories from Canada and other countries that have universal health care where people are forced to wait for treatment for this disease or that simply because of abuse. I want to avoid that situation entirely.
Insurance companies now are being demonized, and in some cases, rightfully so. However, if you eliminate them, you will be putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work.
No one is saying that they want to deny medical treatment to people that absolutely need it, however, I don't want people who have head colds to go to the emergency room knowing they won't have to pay dime one for it, or have so much backlog that people with real legitimate medical needs are being put on a waiting list.
Insurance companies are ruthlessly efficient, and you would prefer the government take over that?
What I'd like to see is a kind of balance between no additional taxes and actually paying for such medical care. Doctors aren't cheap. They go through more than a decade of school, take out millions in malpractice insurance, and run the risk of getting sued each time they see a patient. You can't ask them to take a pay cut.
Drug companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing all kinds of new drugs, many of which never reach the market. You can't ask them to drop their prices unless you subsidize their out of pocket expenses for drugs that never make it to market. FDA approval for a drug takes years to get and the costs are astronomical. Research scientists and doctors simply aren't cheap.
My point is, I want to have a system where people go to the doctor for real medical needs, don't abuse it, and aren't crushed by the medical bill when it comes. Now, I'm insured up the wazoo because of my employer and AFLAC. I pay $60 a month for AFLAC, but I pay nothing for my normal health insurance. Now, your estimates would have already cost me $100 a month. Now, I know your figures are sketchy, but what do you do about people who pay nothing a month?
I have a copay up to I believe $1,000 for any and all medical treatment. That seems pretty fair to me. Even the poorest people can afford to pay $1,000 in payments over the course of years (I know people who've done that)
That being said, thank you Louis for your viewpoint. It is one of the most well thought out counter arguments I've seen on here.
Travis
I think that smart American voters who are fed up with the current health care system will not fear of so-called "socialized medicine" if it provides what Europeans(not just French but British), Japanese, and our northern neighbor have enjoyed for many years. They spend much less percentage of GDP and they have much longer life expectency, with much better health.
Moreover, the advance of genetic testing at birth will cause huge problem under the current system.
And Toyota is able to keep beating up the American Automakers because it does not have to shoulder the health care cost of its workers.
I do have as much concerns as anyone on the potential abuse of a nationalized single payer system. We need someone who is really smart and is not under any influence of any interest group to lead the effort to develop such system.
Post a Comment