Reducing health care costs: 1) Remove insurance providers from the mix: They are overburdened by inefficiencies, needless executive compensation packages, and corporate profits none of which have nothing to do with actual health care. This will save America hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars. 2) Negotiate costs: Government must do what the VA already does which is to negotiate drug prices. There is no dispute that Americans pay the highest drug costs in the world. By doing what European countries do quite successfully America could save truckloads of money by moving towards a single-payer plan. It won't be perfect but at least America will work once again for Americans. And how long will ATR allow this comment viewed ? ? ?
>> AccuracyIT Sunday, June 21, 2009 1:07 PM

1) There's nothing wrong with having insurance companies - the problem is a tax regime that has a bias toward employer-purchased insurance. As purchasers employers have a whole different set of interests than individuals, so the market responds accordingly. Remove the tax bias and either prohibit states goldplating insurance or allow people to purchase across state lines, and while we're at it implement real tort reform so doctors don't need massive malpractice insurance policies and the costs will go down significantly without the need for government control of the marketplace. (cont)
>> TheWaterman Monday, June 22, 2009 11:06 AM

(cont) 2) Negotiating costs on drugs will only do one thing - ensure the research and development of new drugs slows to a crawl. When the government says it is going to "negotiate costs" it just means the govt is telling companies you'll sell for what we want or you won't sell at all. Since most every other developed nation does this, it means they have to raise prices here in order to fund the development of new drugs. Yeah, our prices suck, but it's better than not having any new drug options. (cont)
>> TheWaterman Monday, June 22, 2009 11:11 AM

My underpants are missing!
>> Upside Down Monday, June 22, 2009 11:15 AM

(cont) 3) Furthermore it is a simple fact that the U.S. pays for not only its own national defense but also that of Europe, South Korea, and Japan. I'd love to see how well their systems will hold up if they ever had to shoulder that burden themselves.
>> TheWaterman Monday, June 22, 2009 11:18 AM

Waterman chooses to ignore the FACT the insurance companies drive up the cost of health care by fact the require profits. A single-payer plan would not have such burden. Its the insurance companies who oppose this as they know they cannot compete with the single-payer plan and the cost effectiveness it would bring. As for the tax element Waterman proposes, that's the same tired propaganda coming from ATR, Heritage Foundation, and U.S. Chamber of Horrors. FACT: In Sept 2008 the GAO produced a report stating that 65% of corporations operating in America PAY NO TAX. You can count on transnational corporations employing legions of tax attornies to insure they remain in that 65%. Please tell the truth about taxes.
>> AccuracyIT Monday, June 22, 2009 3:04 PM

There is not one shred of evidence or fact that negotiating drug prices will inhibit drug R&D, and again, the VA has done this for decades without damage to drug companies. This is the usual propaganda put out by ATR, Heritage Foundation, and U.S. Chamber of Horrors, and facilitated by FOX. Its a lie designed to play on people's deepest fears. Many drugs are developed in other countries which can be imported and are safe. This is the dirty little secret the pharmaceutical companies don't want you to know. If America can import cheap/docile (incompetent) labor from 3rd world countries on H-1B visas we can import quality drugs for cheaper prices. We already are doing this with Canada and Waterman continues to ignore that fact.
>> AccuracyIT Monday, June 22, 2009 3:11 PM

America's national defense has no relationship to America's need for a national health care plan so why bring that up? And BTW America is NOT defending either Europe or Japan, both of which have their own militaries.
>> Accuracyit Monday, June 22, 2009 3:15 PM

There's no such thing as a free lunch AccuracyIT. I suppose the savings you envision under a single payer system are similar in nature to the savings Medicare and Medicaid have been reaping by just not making full payments to providers? (src: http://reason.com/news/show/134222.html) So how exactly will single payer manage doing that? And as for your latter comment, it has no bearing at all on my suggestion. Corporate taxation and tax biases in health insurance purchase are only related in that both are tax issues, otherwise neither has a bearing on the other.
>> TheWaterman Monday, June 22, 2009 3:19 PM

And as for the issue of national security, he's why it's relevant. You held up European countries as a model to follow. Most European nations have single payer or some other form of government-run medicine. That is an expensive policy. At the same time, one of the largest expenditures of any nation is defense. The Europeans (and for that matter the South Koreans and the Japanese) have miniscule militaries, definitely not sufficient to be a defensive force. Were they required to bear the full brunt of those costs, it is exceedingly unlikely they could support their healthcare programs.
>> TheWaterman Monday, June 22, 2009 3:23 PM

No free lunch? Correct! How would a single-payer plan be paid? With tax dollars. WHY? Because, as true republicans used to know: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. America used to be country where people cared about one another, and people acted upon the common good. The World War II generation knew this and saved the world. Today we have nothing but selfish people sounding off when they should keep their selfishness to themselves. If you don't want to contribute to the collective good by paying your fair share of taxes then try a 3rd world country. No tax, no regulations, real freedom. Perhaps you should consider that :-)
>> AccuracyIT Monday, June 22, 2009 3:30 PM

And as for the issue of R&D, do you have any idea how expensive it is to get through the FDA approval process? Or how many failed research efforts there are for every successful drug? Making new ones isn't cheap. The only reason there hasn't been a negative impact is because most Americans purchase their drugs at full American prices rather than importing them from elsewhere. No one does anything for free. If America eliminates the possibility of making a profit in the drug industry there's no incentive to keep developing new ones. Why on earth would anyone get into the market? And there is absolutely no equivalence between labor and drugs, I'm not even sure what you were trying to prove with that comment.
>> TheWaterman Monday, June 22, 2009 3:31 PM

"America used to be country where people cared about one another" I don't disagree at all. If you honestly believed in that statement you wouldn't be agitating for single payer, you'd be donating time and money to charity hospitals. To suggest that the only way to get people to help each other is by government force is to espouse a sick and disgusting degree of misanthropy and cynicism about the human condition. I have no problem helping others, but the state has no business coercing that aid. If it needs to coerce yours I wonder which of us is the selfish one.
>> TheWaterman Monday, June 22, 2009 3:37 PM

Some things are worth repeating: Today we have nothing but selfish people sounding off when they should keep their selfishness to themselves. If you don't want to contribute to the collective good by paying your fair share of taxes then try a 3rd world country. No tax, no regulations, real freedom. If you are so unhappy with America and MAJORITY RULE then find another country that accepts your philosophy of selfishness and rule of "law of the jungle". "TheWaterman" - clearly you are denial that the majority of Americans want a national health care plan, and the only real change from what we already have would be single-payer.
>> AccuracyIT Monday, June 22, 2009 8:16 PM

AccuracyIT, I DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE. thanks though
>> nothanks Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:19 PM

Accuracy ????? That's a joke. Japan has civil defense, no military. That was part of the surrender treaty from WWII. Why choose such a name when you can be that far off. Pharma negoiates with the VA for benevolent reasons, as they know, the profits are made on the general populous. NO ONE will fund risky R&D without great rewards. All risk and no rewards WILL IN FACT destroy drug development
>> Mikey Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:04 AM