44% Favor Free Health Care for All Americans

[Lasher]

div class="excerpt"]Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Forty-four percent (44%) of American adults say that health care services should be made available for free to all Americans. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 39% disagree and 17% are not sure.

Fifty-two percent (52%) say that reducing health care costs is a higher priority than making sure everyone is insured. Thirty-nine percent (39%) take the opposite view. Most Democrats (57%) say that providing insurance for everyone is the top priority. Most Republicans (71%) and those not affiliated with either party (52%) say reducing costs should be the priority.

A survey last week by Rasmussen Reports have shown that 50% support government guaranteed health coverage and 62% say the U.S. health care system needs major changes. Another survey, released earlier this week showed that 31% rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent but that those with insurance are generally happy with their coverage.

The latest survey finds that Democrats favor free health care for all by a 59% to 21% margin. Republicans are opposed by a 64% to 25% margin. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 46% favor free health care and 35% are opposed.

Younger Americans are more supportive of free health care than their elders. Among those under 30, 64% favor free health care. Among senior citizens, there is just 26% support for the notion. A plurality of Americans under 50 favor free health care while a plurality of Americans over 50 are opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/44_favor_free_health_care_for_all_americans

[blondeatlast]

1. We need to get big biz to realize this is good for them. Even (gag) Wal-Mart

has been advocating for state measures for health care. they realize it saves them a tremendous amount in expenses--and who knows big biz and dirt-cheap labor better than Wal-Mart?

[Lasher]

2. Good point but the insurance industry hostility outweighs this potential allegiance.

With corporate America being such an incestuous oligopoly of CEO/BOD interlocks, I think senior management of companies in general are inclined to empathize with big insurance companies, even if single-payer could be in their interests as you point out.

[blondeatlast]

3. I think the auto industry--and maybe the airlines--are starting to see it.

And fwiw, Big Pharma seems to support some degree of it too.

Even all those industries combined, however, can't come close to the financial resources of the moneychangers. that's why it is crucial for us to get candidates on board for single payer. as of yet, Aetna can't actually cast a ballot.

[Lasher]

25. But the thing is, these corporations would be just as happy with individual mandate.

As a matter of fact, there has for some time been a move afoot to replace employer-paid health care with employee-paid catastrophic-only substitutes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=210673

[bobbolink]

39. Actually, the big car manufacturers are in favor of universal, single-payer

I agree that you'd think the big corps would all stick together.

What's happening though is that big companies are realizing that health care is holding them back from competing in the international market.

[Lasher]

46. Right, but they can get out of paying for health care by substituting a form of individual mandate

Please consider this thread, from awhile back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=210673

[warren pease]

49. I heard recently that...

...GM decided to open a manufacturing facility, with 30,000 jobs, in Ontario, Canada rather than in the US because of the cost of providing health care here as mandated by union contracts. Wingnuts, of course, will probably say this is one more reason why we need to get rid of unions, evil miserly thieves that they are. However, that's still a net 30,000 \ jobs lost in Michigan, which I hear is one hell of an economically depressed place these days and could probably use a facility just like that one.

Also, I've heard that US health care costs add about $1,700 to the price of each new car made in America.

Don't have cites or links for either of these, but I'll see if I can find some a bit later.


wp

[bobbolink]

54. What you've heard is correct, and more losses since then.

I heard $2000 per car, but it probably goes up from there.

The hidden taxes in everything we buy should be shouted out to people who are so afraid of "higher taxes"!

[LeftCoast]

4. Free? Somebody's got to pay for it

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Taxes and a small service fee

that is how you pay for this, but overall it is cheaper than what we have right now

Oh and EVERYBODY has to be equally taxed, no caps

[LeftCoast]

7. That's cool. I just don't like people to think that there's some magic wand out there

Health care costs a lot of money and it's only going to continue to cost more in the future. Whatever solution we come up with, ultimately is about deciding how this all gets paid for.

[Lasher]

9. We could save enough to pay for it by cutting out the insurance company middlemen.

But don't take my word for it, check it out here: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php

That's one thing that really gets me. We're paying twice as much per capita as Canada is now, and they're covering everybody.

[LeftCoast]

12. We'll have to pay about what we're paying now, but we should get better coverage

Our system is highly inefficient at this point. Case in point is the use of ED's (formerly known as ER's) for basic health care.

I work in health care. Most people have no idea just how incredibly complex the whole system is.

[Lasher]

15. How right you are.

And not only would be get better coverage, we could include everyone - all at a zero net increase in cost.

[blondeatlast]

24. Having had a lifetime chronic condition, I have come to know.

Hours upon hours dealing with billing departments in hospitals, docs' offices, labs, etc--and I have a pretty good plan.

I know how much office time my beloved primary care doc's people spend just on paperwork; she wants it handled in house and has 2 FT staffers (in an office of 2 docs) to handle it.

If AMericans knew how the moneychangers SEEK to corrupt and complicate the system, we'd go a long way in advancing a reasonable national program.

Keep talking, friend--you ARE being heard.

[Lasher]

26. I am sorry you have an affliction.

But I'm glad you have health coverage. I just want it for all Americans.

[blondeatlast]

52. Me too. I remember what it was like to need intensive maintenace without

any coverage whatsoever.

I'd literally borrow used items from friends, save my pennies until payday when I could refresh--and scarily, sometimes go an entire day without medicating or eating (I've taken insulin for 40 years).

This is no way for a strong nation to treat it's citizens.

[LeftCoast]

28. I hate to tell you this, but medicare billing is even worse

I'm 100% for universal health care...still up in the air about how to pay. There are good universal coverage systems out there based on private insurance, just as there are good systems that are government run. Each has their issues and problems. Our present system is a bastardized substandard version of both though.

:)

[Lasher]

38. Medicare Parts A and B billing is not as bad or worse.

Substantially low overhead costs of these programs indicate otherwise. For comparison, that's what we're talking about - Parts A and B, not Parts C or D. But if you have documentation to support your claim that medicare billing is even worse, please share that so I can thereby be enriched.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Actually the costs will be lower

Canada spends about half per person per year than we do... due to efficiencies of scale and yes, socialized medicine

Their outcomes are also better

[LeftCoast]

32. I don't know enough about the details of both systems to say for sure

I find it hard to imagine we'll be paying (nationally) 50% less on health care after universal coverage is implemented. I think there are clear efficiencies to be gained, but I think it's hard to predict how much cost versus savings we will achieve. I tend to look at it from a 'fair society' view point more than a cost-savings view. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. According to the World Health Organization

their life expectancy and outcomes for our three favorite killers are far better

And yes, they spend half of what we spend

My side hobby, comparing national systems

The only reason the Ameircan sysetm is not considered third world is the ammount of spending done on those WHO CAN AFFORD IT

We have world class medical care if you can afford it.

But some indicators, such as national vaccination campaigns, we are behind some third world countries and we are 44 in quality of service world wide, in the middle of the pack to be exact

Them 48 million without insurance have no access to care, and when they seek it, at the ER, it is the most expensive form of medical delivery system available... plus if this is a chronic condition... they are sicker than if they went to the doctor for a regular checkup... that's where your savings come

[raccoon]

66. When you talk about it, don't use the word "free." First off, as has been said,

it's not free. It comes out of our taxes.

And lots of people hear the word "free" and think "commie/socialist/lazy-ass people wanting something for nothing.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. It will cost a whole heck of a lot less...

If you take out the money sucking middle man.

[LeftCoast]

13. I don't think it will cost that much less

Not to mention that health care costs will continue to rise whether insurance companies are in the mix or not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Look at CANADA

they pay 1\2 per person per anum of what we currently pay.

Yes it will go down

[FiveGoodMen]

23. What keeps driving the cost up if it's not the insurance companies?

[LeftCoast]

29. Lots of factors

New equipment, new medications, new procedures. People have gotten doctorates working on this topic.

In some senses insurance companies actually help to control costs. They negotiate with doctors and hospitals as to what they'll pay and generally it's about 10 cents to every dollar that they'd charge you out-of-pocket.

[FiveGoodMen]

33. Considering how much less some of those meds cost in other countries

I'm not convinced that the costs are really going up -- just the prices.

[bobbolink]

43. Other countries don't allow patents on medications.

Some countries actually consider health care to be a human right, not one more avenue for big profits.

What a concept.

[FiveGoodMen]

53. I with you all the way on that!

Medicine for profit is awful. (I've tried explaining to many friends that the compensation that medical professionals get is not the same as profit, but I'm not sure I got through to them.)

And frankly, if our government hadn't screwed itself up trying to be like a business, I think we could be doing the research with tax money (yes, taxes would go up, but we'd get the money back with cheaper, better health care). No one would get stinking rich, but the researchers who actually do the work would be glad to do it for Uncle Sam as long as they got a decent salary.

[bobbolink]

58. All I can say is that if other countries can do it and it works, then so can USA!

Actually, most research is gov't funded, anyway.

It's all a sham.

[AngryAmish]

55. No patents for medications = no new medications

[bobbolink]

56. Oh, Geeeeeez. You're right. NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS MEDICATIONSl

:crazy: :crazy:

[AngryAmish]

70. The important word is new

Compare and contrast the new medications in the last 10 years from countries which grant patent protection and those countries which do not. Kill the money in medical research you kill medical research. Period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Hmm agian

Canada has the equipment

But they don't have the adds that promote the crap on TEEVEE

reality is most of the research is financed by you and me through NIH, but NIH is no longer getting any of the money from the sales of medicine as they used to

All the profits are going to big pharma

it is such a bidness that we now have private research centers too

[Lasher]

63. Insurance companies negotiate 90% discounts?

That's a pretty profound claim.

[Milo_Bloom]

35. You gotta be kidding me...

You don't think pulling out a 40%-60% markup is going to reduce costs????

You do realize that Doctors intentially markup their rates to protect themselves right? Then, the insurance company needs to make profit on that rate, so they pass it along to the consumer.

For example. Say a Doctor WANTS to get $100 for a 10 minute office visit. They may "charge" $150 to the insurance company, so that the insurance company will negotiate them down to $100. The insurance company then has to make a profit on that $100 dollars spent. Moreso, the insurance company has to make up for the cost of advertising its services, sales departments, PR departments, rediculous levels of administrative costs, mailing costs, filing costs. By the time you are done, the inurance company will spend $130 on that $100 bill AND then make a profit of $20, raising the actual cost of that Doctor Visit from $100 to $150.

So, your story is that if you take out the middle person and eliminate most of those costs AND the need for middle man profit... the story you are trying to sell is that this won't change the COST of health care to the people who need it?


You should take a look at tha secondary ticket market to get a better understand of economics.

[bunkerbuster1]

16. I think "Free at point of delivery" would be the technically correct term

I believe that's how the Brits refer to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. The only reason I would add a very small service

fee, like Tricare does, but even lower than Tricare, is becuase of American training, if it is free at Point of Service, they think its not good...

So I would charge something like three bucks, purely symbolic

[LeftCoast]

30. Plus, you don't necessarily want people coming in for every skinned knee either

I agree with a nominal fee.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. The UK and Canada don't have that problem

and they don't have a point of service fee...

Neither does tricare if you are in the system as active duty dependent, and again they don't have that problem

But in the beginig you'd have to have it.

As to system abusers, you will have them in any system... frequent fliers are so much fun... saying that as a former medic

[bobbolink]

42. It's not "symbolic" to those who don't have the $3.

You're right back to where it is now..... cut out those who are at the bottom. Gee, thanks a whole big bunch.

PLUS.... it cost more in processing than the $3 brings in, so it's losing money.

It's just a punishment for those who don't have it.

Why is it still so hard for liberals to understand that not everyone is in their income bracket???????

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Look today I paid 12 for my deductible

it is not an insignificant ammount of money but... here I am not dealing with the economic reality that some folks truly don't have the three bucks... in fact, programs such as this one will have to take that into account

But I am dealing with the American reality that people have been trained to think that if something is free, it ain't good

For example, Open Office... great word processor

Cost

FREE

You know how many think how many folks believe it is trash because it is free?

The only reason I got Office 07 is that quite frankly it can do the light DTP I need better... for once Open Office didn't do something as well as Word 07

As to the cost of processing... why it costs to much to process claim forms at hospitals who have full billing departments, is the insurance companies. You remove that... those three bucks could actually finance the three bucks you don't have. And I am serious about that one.

[raccoon]

68. I think there should be a small copay, with an exception for those who are indigent.

I have a relative who goes to the doctor for every little ache and pain. Some people are like that. They would break the system, if we had a national health plan.

[bunkerbuster1]

44. Works for me.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if that's all we had to argue about?

[lovuian]

5. its going to happen anyway

when recession comes more and more workers won't have insurance and therefor no way to pay

[Chulanowa]

8. 52% say "I got mine, sucks for you"

Proud to be an American.

[Lasher]

11. Did you notice the lack of support from seniors?

I think a lot of them are afraid any changes might cause them to lose their Medicare.

[Selatius]

14. John Conyer's Medicare for All bill simply expands Medicare to include everybody.

If they're being told that single-payer means Medicare gets demolished and replaced with something new, they're being misinformed.

[bunkerbuster1]

17. They'll be told anything to get 'em all askairt...

Right wing radio is in full whine mode, screaming "HillaryCare! HillaryCare!"

Tune in to five minutes of Sean Hannijob's show sometime...

[Lasher]

19. And Hillary is screwing up yet again by endorsing individual mandate.

Sooner or later you gotta take a stand and that time has come. Too bad many people are so scared of the insurance companies.

[Lasher]

18. Yes, they and a lot of others are being sadly misinformed.

That was pretty much my point. I wish a real Democratic leader could get out in front with this and effectively spread the gospel. A vast majority would be highly receptive if we could effectively communicate the advantages of single-payer UHC.

[PDenton]

62. No, it's a genuine lack of empathy

It's not they are afraid of losing medicare. They are afraid of sticking their neck out for somebody else that they don't know. It's more like the rich man walking past Lazarus the beggar, to use a biblical allusion. The rich man doesn't want to get into "somebody else's business". Not his brother's keeper, etc. Again, it is my belief that this kind of thing is a sign of moral degeneracy, especially on such a crucial issue- it's not even one that asks you to question your religious beliefs like stem cell research or marriage ammendments. But try telling that to a Republican or the brainwashed masses who think that kind of behavior is normal. It is a sign of a dysfunctional society with no feeling of solidarity left.

Universal coverage is a good idea, one that even many businessmen say is a great idea. But only 44 percent of Americans support it? Yuck.

[kenny blankenship]

51. 52% say "I got mine, I just want to get it for LESS" (& everyone else go to hell)

[Hatchling]

27. More would approve of it.

More would approve of it if some of the myths were dispelled. The fear of not being able to see your own doctor, of not being able to see specialists when you need to, that doctors won't make enough money, etc. I'm on Medi-Cal/Medicare (I'm disabled) and I have health benefits that even most insured would envy. My family doctor who is awesome, has a preponderance of Medi-Medi patients and makes quite enough to afford several vacations a year.

Although I have to scrimp every penny to afford food and rent because my SSA/SSI is minimal, I don't have to worry about getting the medical attention I need or access to specialists as I require them. Everyone should have the health care I get.

[superkia]

34. Of all the candidates, I like Dennis Kucinichs plan for non profit.

[Lasher]

36. Me too.

It's frustrating to me that he can't seem to get much traction with it. Big money in politics is bad.

[superkia]

50. Its all about television advertising. He gets none.

I think if enough people hear about him and continue to spread his word to their friends and family, he could surprise allot of people. Most people have friends and family in different states, so his word can get out as long as all that support him give it there all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Yep, he has it right

[kenny blankenship]

45. I love how this poll makes it seem like you must choose between lower costs and full coverage!

Fifty-two percent (52%) say that reducing health care costs is a higher priority than making sure everyone is insured.

Who to take on the lifeboat? Hmmm...

One thing you gotta say for our American Consensus Manufacturing Industry: they sure know how to build a durable false dichotomy!

[redqueen]

47. "Among those not affiliated with either major party, 46% favor free health care "

I just do not understand why people are still playing the "can't work, the people don't want it" card

:crazy:

[RedEarth]

48. A single-payer plan could be financed this way......

......from...... Physicians for a National Health Program

Won’t this raise my taxes?
Currently, about 64% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 17% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 19% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance – so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Another consideration is that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance that is almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes

http://www.pnhp.org/

[Vinca]

59. My taxes would need to go up to well beyond 50% to make up

for the $12,000 insurance would cost if I could afford it, plus the $5,000 deductible, plus the co-pays, plus the cost of whatever is denied. If people would sit down and do the math they would find out that if we had single payer, universal healthcare, they would end up with MORE money in their pockets at the end of the month, not less.

[depakid]

57. "Among senior citizens, there is just 26% support"

Assuming the numbers are somewhat accurate (a big assumption) what does that say about seniors who already enjoy the benefits of Medicare- which, although not free or comprehensive, is a damn sight better than what 50-80 million other Americans have.

My personal thoughts re: boomers and older Gen Xer's is that the way the last 2 generations have been raised (and the way that they've been treated) it's foolhardy to expect that they'll keep subsidizing seniors as things get tough.

And perhaps that's just.

[Vinca]

60. Medicare is not all it's cracked up to be, either.

If you tally up what the cost per month is to each recipient, then add in the supplemental insurance you apparently need to buy so you don't get monstrous bills if something happens, it's nearly as much as private insurance for people under 65. We need to incorporate Medicare, Medicaid, VA Hospitals and every other program under one tent and take it from there. Everyone gets the same benefit regardless of income level and no one ends up in a refrigerator box on the street if they get sick. If wealthy people want to buy insurance that would give them a private nurse and a private room and a mink-covered bedpan, fine, but not at the expense of the masses.

[PDenton]

61. I've got mine, fuck you

That's exactly what this survey says. Sad, isn't it? Democrats can fight this though by forming a coalition with carrots and sticks, if they really have the spine for universal healthcare. No universal healthcare, no insurance rate cuts.

What people are not understanding... is that the fact that health insurance is neither universal nor cheap is not unrelated, but tied together. Currently alot of young people are not buying insurance at all. Either because they cannot afford it, or because they are healthy and would rather buy iPods. The risks aren't being spread around, so mostly insurance is bought by sicker people . A universal coverage system would tackle both the costs, since everybody would share risk, and the problem of basic affordability, all in one stroke.

[antigop]

65. Oprah -- Is Healthcare a human right?

I think her show moved the issue forward yesterday.

I think that's where the argument needs to go....how many of the presidential candidates have declared healthcare is a human right?

Article 31 of the Iraqi constitution
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101100961.html
>>
Article 31: "Every citizen has the right to health care. The state takes care of public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and medical institutions."
>>

I think we need to bring this up over and over.

And I'm hoping Oprah (who supports Obama) will discuss the issue with him.

[Renew Deal]

67. Ironic that those that oppose it will partly die off from lack of care.

[LWolf]

69. HR 676 is on the table, waiting for their support. n/t