National Health care-would it help business like GM and other big business

by them not having to pay for health insurance.

They say health insurance is a huge amount of their debt.

I thought Bush was always on the side of big business. So why is he not for national health care?

are Big Business as well. You wouldn't want to cut them out of $400 billion worth of paperwork, would you?

The insurance companies are very big business. HMO's are very Big Business - like Presidential Wannabe Bill Frist's .

When Hillary led the battle, the health insurance industry "circled the wagons" - raised and spent megabucks, gave us the "Harry and Louise" infomercials, and defeated Hillary's floor manager in the Senate, Harris Wofford (replaced him with Rickie Santorum).

Besides, "Hot Tub Tom" Tom Delay says it is socialism.

the national highway system and anything else done for the common good.

or even INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

The two things I gained from reading them were...

1) Democratic primary candidates (I particularly remember Mosely-Braun talking about this) were right about inefficiency in the management of American insurance companies. US companies spend 14% on administration while European health care is administered at about 4% cost.

2) The laissez-faire model of producer and consumer doesn't fit the health insurance industry, because profits are made by discriminating among consumers rather than by improving the efficiency of the producer side of the model

The insurance companies work hard to manage the expenses rather than making their operations efficient.

While this approach has benefited Americans in some respects by emphasizing prevention.

But it has also has a dark side that involves

Denying coverage to millions of risky patients protects against payouts...

Lobbying against malpractice lawsuits protects against payouts...

Lobbying against universal health care protects against competition with a provider that would be forced to be efficient.

Letting administrative costs rise far beyond the average for the developed world.

In the end the behavior of insurance companies raises health care costs to individuals and company health care plans and contributes to making America less competitive, and leaves a huge fraction of the population with no financial protection against medical costs.

1. Unpaid medical and hospital bills are the major cause of 50% of bankruptcies - even among people with insurance

--- MarketWatch: Illness And Injury As Contributors To Bankruptcy, -- if that like doesn't work

2. Single payer is much more efficient then our presently existing patchwork and byzantine labyrinth of insurers.

-------------And on and on and on -- just go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and search under either "Woolhandler" or Himmelstein"

3. And look at the crap (oops, "party line") that the health insurance industry puts out for the sheeple---

Karen Ignagni's Letter to the Editor in today's Times, attempting to rebut Paul Krugman - Ignagni gave us the "Harry and Louise" infomercials.

"To the Editor:

In making a case for a one-size-fits-all health care system, Paul Krugman ("A Private Obsession," column, April 29) ignores the private sector's progress in adding value to our health care system and stretching consumers' health care dollars.

During the 1990's, Americans decisively rejected a single-payer system. They were concerned about the rationing of care, endless delays and lack of access to state-of-the-art procedures experienced in countries with government-run systems. That's why residents of these nations go to great lengths to gain access to American health care, and why their leaders are reaching out for disease management, care coordination and other private-sector initiatives.

Mr. Krugman's government-versus-private juxtaposition minimizes the complexities of reforming health care and overlooks the vibrant public-private partnerships that millions of Americans count on. For example, Medicare and Medicaid patients who opt for private-sector plans are getting better care at lower costs than their counterparts in the government-only side of the program.

Americans deserve a real health care debate and real solutions, starting with evidence-based medicine, medical liability reform and the information they need to make better decisions. That's a more complex but ultimately more productive path to reform.

Karen Ignagni
President and Chief Executive
America's Health Insurance Plans
Washington, April 29, 2005"

The Health Insurance Mafioso out and out "mis-state" the facts

I believe that a GOOD National Health Care system would result in fabulous benefits to all but the Insurance Companies and HMOs. People are afraid to start their own businesses or change jobs. They know they will lose their health insurance.

Small business would be rejuvenated and our economy would explode, IMHO.

This is an economic issue on the level with any "stimulus" plan and it can be used as a very successful religious issue if the grass roots and politicians pursue the true teachings of various religions to help the helpless and provide for our fathers and mothers and children. This nation has never truly achieved the "city on a hill" status that early residents hoped for. For every bright moment there was a deep dark well of misery or murder. We have the chance to make our National Health Care the envy of the world. DO IT RIGHT! Time is short......

I don't know how many times my husband and I (and we have good health insurance) have said that if the government helped get this monkey off the back of the people and the businesses it would be THE biggest economic boost ever. AND, allowing foreign competition in Rx drugs would also help put a lot of "what shall we go out and buy today" money in the pockets of the American people. We have got to get out of this goddamn protection racket called the 'health insurance industry'.

Largely for the reasons you state.

instead of health care expense?

1. The much higher administrative and bureaucratic costs of private insurance. (Don't take my word - I am just repeating the Woolhandler & Himmelstein studies at Harvard).

2. Social costs of cherry picking and of uninsured.

3. Work the numbers - especially on insuring the uninsured and getting care to them earlier.

Yes, everybody will still have to pay. But, remember that US insurance companies have administrative costs that run about 14%, while European government health care only has 4% administrative costs.

As an example, my wife's company has better health insurance than mine, so we use hers. Her out-of-pocket cost each paycheck is about $100 for our family Horizon Blue Cross plan. At twice a month, that is $2,400 per year out of pocket. Her company is picking up about 3/4 of the tab on the insurance, so they are paying $300 twice per month, or $7,200 per year.

Now considering that 14% of the costs go towards administration, that $9,600 per year is $1,344 of admin costs and $8,256 of non-admin costs.

If the admin costs were 4% instead of 14%, the $8,256 base cost would increase only $330 instead of $1,344. So, instead of $9,600, you are paying $8,586, and instead of paying insurance company premium, you are paying a tax to cover the premium.

But, the cost difference means a net savings of over $1,000. If all 1,500 employees in her company had the same health plan, it would save the company over $1,500,000!

You posted:"Yes, everybody will still have to pay. But, remember that US insurance companies have administrative costs that run about 14%, while European government health care only has 4% administrative costs."

The Harvard (Woolhandler and Himmelstein) Studies say that administrative costs, fraud, waste, duplication, malpractice, and "defensive medicine" total are about 25%-30% (and they report that malpractice, and "defensive medicine" are on the order of 1%-2%).

However, even if you take the 14% vs 4%, it is still a large amount of savings per person.

Another thing to add that I forgot to add is that while European governments have admin costs of 4%, I'm guessing that after a few years, we'd be lower than that. Our gov't run programs are usually pretty good in that regards, much to the surprise of many Republicans. Isn't it quite a bit cheaper & quicker to send a letter here? (not to compare health care to the post office, but I think there are other similar programs as well, I'm just drawing a Friday afternoon blank)

About 25 years ago an early Silicon Valley entrepreneur (Jerry Drexler) was looking at a "global" system (not geographically - but functionally) that would link patients, primary care providers, specialist providers, ancillary providers, etc. and insurance carriers -- all by swiping a card into a reader and entering one or more passwords.

Of course, this would have meant common "back office" paper shuffling protocols and procedures and data formats (as transparent as an ATM transaction). And, it would have eliminated a lot of jobs and saved a lot of money.

It is definitely doable. (Jerry is a very persuasive guy, and very creative - and really believes that the mag stripe is the key to everything).

Do the math-Possibly 140 million lack health care coverage currently in US.

They aren't in the risk pool AT ALL.

The vast majority of them are healthy.

Now, absorb those into the 80 million or so who DO have coverage. The risk pool is DRASTICALLY diluted, making costs go down for all involved save the for-profit insurers and big pharma.

And one can easily obtain their own health insurance if one desires to do so, much as one is allowed to send their child to private school.

I've asked myself for years why these corporations who daily bitch and moan that having to provide healthcare for their employees is just killing their bottom line (as the bastards pocket zillions in profit) don't want, demand, push for a national healthcare system (and buy a bunch of Congressmen to do it like they do to get anything else they want). This would bail our GM and Ford for openers........

I own a small business and it would help me immensely. It's true that health care is a HUGE expense for any business, it seems the big corps. would be all over this issue.

They seldom actually help their "constituents," except for big oil, the bankers, weapons manufacturers and drug dealers.

They have done nothing of substance to help the religiously insane contingent; they just keep them in a perpetual state of intense hatred of liberals. They have set the economic stage for the collapse of most corporations.

"The Canadian plan has been a significant advantage for investing in Canada," says GM Canada spokesman David Patterson, noting that in the United States, GM spends $1,400 per car on health benefits. Indeed, with the provinces sharing 75 percent of the cost of Canadian healthcare, it's no surprise that GM, Ford and Chrysler have all been shifting car production across the border at such a rate that the name "Motor City" should belong to Windsor, not Detroit.

Just two years ago, GM Canada's CEO Michael Grimaldi sent a letter co-signed by Canadian Autoworkers Union president Buzz Hargrave to a Crown Commission considering reforms of Canada's 35-year-old national health program that said, "The public healthcare system significantly reduces total labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to their cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers." That letter also said it was "vitally important that the publicly funded healthcare system be preserved and renewed, on the existing principles of universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration," and went on to call not just for preservation but for an "updated range of services." CEOs of the Canadian units of Ford and DaimlerChrysler wrote similar encomiums endorsing the national health system.


http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/042705LB.shtml

United Technologies' Pratt & Whitney division has major operations in Canada, too. They used to employ thousands & thousands in Connecticut. They still have major operations in CT, but not nearly as many people...

So, your airline engines may say Pratt & Whitney on them, but they could be made in Canada.

That it would help on EVERY level, especially the small business owners. It took catastrophic cases out of the pool.

The media IGNORED his healthcare bill even though nonpartisan groups gave it very high ratings, because it made sense and was DOABLE.

(snip)
The strike "would not have occurred if we had a system of universal healthcare coverage," Greg Denier, assistant to the international president of the UFCW, told me. "All of our strikes in the past decade have occurred because of the absence of universal healthcare." Moreover, universal health coverage would have narrowed the wide gap in operating costs between the unionized chains and nonunion competitors, particularly 800-pound gorilla Wal-Mart. Unlike the chains, the world's biggest retailer charges so much for miserly health insurance that more than 60 percent of its poorly paid employees (averaging $8 an hour) don't buy it. Denier saw the strike as a symptom of "the slow-motion collapse of the employment-based healthcare system."

Lawyer Harry Burton represented Safeway and Giant Food in subsequent negotiations with the UFCW in the Washington, DC, region. Speaking "as an individual," he essentially agreed with Denier. Universal health insurance would have "a profound effect" not just on the supermarket industry but "on nearly all collective bargaining," he told me. Nonunion companies "virtually never" provide healthcare of the same quality as that provided by unionized competitors, thus creating "a vast disparity in costs." That's why a tax-supported national system would result in "a leveling of the playing field." I asked Burton what explains the resistance or indifference of employers to universal health insurance. "Very frequently it's ideology," he replied.

(snip)

Highly placed Canadian business executives affirm that single-payer nurtures free enterprise. A. Charles Baillie, while chairman and CEO of Toronto Dominion Bank, one of Canada's six largest, hailed it in 1999 as "an economic asset, not a burden." He told the Vancouver Board of Trade, "In an era of globalization, we need every competitive and comparative advantage we have. And the fundamentals of our health care system are one of those advantages." He added: "The fact is, the free market...cannot work in the context of universal health care. While health care could be purchased like any other form of insurance...the risk and resource equation will always be such that, in some cases, demand will not be matched by supply. In other words, some people will always be left out." (A recent report by the World Bank ranked welfare states like Denmark, Finland and Sweden high in international competitiveness. An author of the study said, "Social protection is good for business, it takes the burden off of businesses for health care costs."

All emphasis mine.

More...this is from Ebsco, so you have to get to it yourself through your public library or something.

The Nation Magazine, November 2004.