| Real health care reform wouldn't require $1 trillion in new revenues over 10 years. It wouldn't require ANY new money. In fact, it would result in a 50% SAVING. |
| Percentage change since 2002 in average premiums paid to large US health-insurance companies: +87%
Percentage change in the profits of the top ten insurance companies: +428% Chances that an American bankrupted by medical bills has health insurance: 7 in 10 Source: Harper’s Index, September 2009 via "This Isn’t Reform, It’s Robbery" By Chris Hedges - truthdig.com - Aug 23, 2009 The fundamental problem with our health care system is that it is bloated with waste, fraud and abuse. The indisputable evidence for this is that the rest of the developed world spends around half of the per-capita cost of our current system. (While covering all of their residents and achieving comparable results. The reason that it is so bloated is that it is an investor owned, for-profit system. This inherently weaves into it all kinds of perverse incentives that drive up costs. If we just burp out all of the waste, fraud and abuse, we can solve all of our problems and cover everyone while at the same time saving a bundle of money. If we do nothing but adopt the methods that other developed countries have already designed, we could cover everyone and save half of what we're spending now. And the common theme in each one of those plans is that none of them are investor owned, for-profit systems. What we must avoid is a plan that simply funnels massive amounts of new money into the existing corrupt investor owned, for-profit system under the guise of reform, and allow the debate to degenerate into a choice between funding options. It's beginning to appear that this is exactly what may emerge from congress this year. Evidence of that includes the support that this plan has received from the insurance industry, the AMA, and the pharmaceutical companies. But why are we having any of these debates at all? We hashed all of this out back in the 1960s, and the result was Medicare. Medicare has a successful track record that demonstrates that these debates are over. Why don't we just gradually change the age window in Medicare until everyone is covered? Or at least devise a system whereby we can all buy into it? |
No one has submitted a comment on this statement yet.
Be the first and submit your feedback below.
Submit your comment below |