Whole Foods CEO vs. Obama's health insurance reform

We can talk about the inefficiency of the Federal Government all we want, but the current US Health Care Systems is the most inefficient care delivery system around and is simply not sustainable. Consider, the US spends over 15% of its economy (GDP) on health related care. This is almost twice the average % of GDP for other developed countries such as Japan, S. Korea, France, Sweden, etc., yet the outcomes here are not measurably better than that experienced in these other nations. The inflation rate for health care is twice that of the whole economy, and has been since 1970.
I wish I was smart enough to figure out the solution, but I'm convinced that doing nothing is not a viable alternative to meaningful health care reform.
Bill

The solution is right before our eyes. Simply do what so many other countries that have HALF the costs are doing (and they even have better outcomes in many cases, plus coverage for EVERYONE).

It is called Single Payer. It would require getting rid of the corporate leaches, such as the insurance companies. Perhaps their employees could retrain to learn useful skills such as nursing, rather than paper-shuffling. It really wouldn't be that hard, but the politicians are so well paid off that it may be impossible.

As for the "massive new debt" from the proposed reforms, a trillion bucks over ten years is a drop in the bucket when you look at it as only 100 billion per year and compare it to our war follies in Iraq (and now Afghanistan). We spend more than 600 billion per year, basically on OFFENSE (it is difficult to call it defense). We're still spending far more in Iraq per year than the health plan would cost. That shows our priorities. The US people truly come second to the corporate interests in the defense industry.

Etc, etc...Single payer. Just do it.

We can talk about the inefficiency of the Federal Government all we want, but the current US Health Care Systems is the most inefficient care delivery system around and is simply not sustainable.

This is not true. People are voluntarily spending money on healthcare. If by "unsustainable" you than something that can't continue forever won't, then I agree. It's unsustainable. But, it will self correct when people make individual choices to not spend as much on health care.

Consider, the US spends over 15% of its economy (GDP) on health related care. This is almost twice the average % of GDP for other developed countries such as Japan, S. Korea, France, Sweden, etc., yet the outcomes here are not measurably better than that experienced in these other nations.

It actually depends on what you measure and who's doing the measuring.

The inflation rate for health care is twice that of the whole economy, and has been since 1970.

That's because folks find that spending money on new health care innovations is worth it. Before the advent of automobiles, the transportation budget of the average family was very low, as walking was the main way of getting around. Now families' transportation budgets are much higher, but nobody feels the need to socialize transportation so it's fair to everybody.

I wish I was smart enough to figure out the solution, but I'm convinced that doing nothing is not a viable alternative to meaningful health care reform.
Bill

How about we open up health insurance markets to nationwide competition? How about we allow more nurse practitioners? Did you know many states limit the number and kinds of hospitals? And the number of hospital beds? There are many government policies that limit health car competition.

[Robin Garr]

The solution is right before our eyes. Simply do what so many other countries that have HALF the costs are doing (and they even have better outcomes in many cases, plus coverage for EVERYONE). ... Etc, etc...Single payer. Just do it.

So simple, yet so hard to see with all the static coming out of the Far Right and the Big Pharma-Big Insurance complex.

It is called Single Payer. It would require getting rid of the corporate leaches, such as the insurance companies.

What do you suppose the average profit margin of medical insurers is?

Perhaps their employees could retrain to learn useful skills such as nursing, rather than paper-shuffling. It really wouldn't be that hard, but the politicians are so well paid off that it may be impossible.

Any imagined government managed health care program would have MORE paper shufflers than any private industry. Even now, much of the paper shuffling is due to government mandates.

As for the "massive new debt" from the proposed reforms, a trillion bucks over ten years is a drop in the bucket

Yeah, You believe those figure huh? Single payer is cheaper than just Medicare ($400 million)!

How about we prove that Medicare and Medicaid are sustainable before we basically expand them to everybody. The only way to make this even remotely possible, is to mandate young folks that don't currently buy medical insurance pay into the system, whether they want to or not. And then reduce the expensive care afforded to retired folks on Medicare, by evaluation the quality of life return on investment. Plus tax the bejesus out of everyone that has an economic pulse. And then every year when the national budget for health care is set, draw a line through the list of possible medical procedures, and deny any below that line that would break the budget.

when you look at it as only 100 billion per year and compare it to our war follies in Iraq (and now Afghanistan). We spend more than 600 billion per year, basically on OFFENSE (it is difficult to call it defense). We're still spending far more in Iraq per year than the health plan would cost. That shows our priorities. The US people truly come second to the corporate interests in the defense industry.

Etc, etc...Single payer. Just do it.

So simple, yet so hard to see with all the static coming out of the Far Right and the Big Pharma-Big Insurance complex.

So, there's no principled way to oppose nationalized health care? My opposition is just "static" from the "far right"? Does this make me evil too?

BTW, President Obama has paid off "Big Pharma" and they've agreed to pay for something like $150 million for advertising supporting the health care reform plan.

So, if you're against big pharma, then you should oppose this health care reform bill. Does this make big pharma "good" now?



Full dislosure, I'm a registered Democrat.... for now.

- More deregulation of the health care industry, allowing companies to team up and purchase insurance through association health plans, and allowing the purchase of out-of-state insurance to increase competition.

----

As for nationalized health care - No. Single payer - No.

I hear something every day that raises more questions. Will health care be rationed? How are we paying for this? Will illegal immigrants be eligible? While I don't believe for a second that there will be death panels, I do believe that there will be rationing. What's the point of everyone having health care if nobody can get in to see a doctor?

If this can be done properly, and I can truly keep my insurance if I'm happy, (no fingers crossed behind back), I'm not against it, but if it's going to be done, I want it done correctly. As in, why the rush? I also don't see the harm in forcing Congress to adopt the plan they want us to use. Fairs fair.

I have been fortunate to be relatively healthy and insured my entire life. If I have to pay some additional $$$ to provide insurance for Mr. Big Screen and the Prada toting lady mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd gladly do it, provided that at least a few of the truly needy and/or uninsurable people get some reasonable level of coverage. Maybe it was the way I was brought up. We were poor, but were always taught to feel compassion and help those less fortunate.
Bill

Thank you.


We cover the roads, we cover the fire & police departments, we cover the sewage and sanitation...
We could just as easily say go out and build your own road, your own sewage plant and god forbid we took the government out of the fire prevention and protection industry... Can you imagine having to call your insurance company to request a fireman or cop while your house or neighbors house burns or is being robbed?. It's the same thing.

As for the argument that private entities can't compete with public ones - that's worked out well for UPS & Fedex.

We can talk about the inefficiency of the Federal Government all we want, but the current US Health Care Systems is the most inefficient care delivery system around and is simply not sustainable.

This is not true. People are voluntarily spending money on healthcare. If by "unsustainable" you than something that can't continue forever won't, then I agree. It's unsustainable. But, it will self correct when people make individual choices to not spend as much on health care.

Consider, the US spends over 15% of its economy (GDP) on health related care. This is almost twice the average % of GDP for other developed countries such as Japan, S. Korea, France, Sweden, etc., yet the outcomes here are not measurably better than that experienced in these other nations.

It actually depends on what you measure and who's doing the measuring.

The inflation rate for health care is twice that of the whole economy, and has been since 1970.

That's because folks find that spending money on new health care innovations is worth it. Before the advent of automobiles, the transportation budget of the average family was very low, as walking was the main way of getting around. Now families' transportation budgets are much higher, but nobody feels the need to socialize transportation so it's fair to everybody.

I wish I was smart enough to figure out the solution, but I'm convinced that doing nothing is not a viable alternative to meaningful health care reform.
Bill

How about we open up health insurance markets to nationwide competition? How about we allow more nurse practitioners? Did you know many states limit the number and kinds of hospitals? And the number of hospital beds? There are many government policies that limit health car competition.

Just because some people choose to spend lots of money on health care with with no meaningful improvement in outcomes does not make the decision making or resource allocation efficient. Quite the opposite is true.
Transportation is not quite the same as life and death health care decisions and while we may never agree that there is a difference, the government/people have decided that transportation should be fair and affordable. Witness the spending on roads and bridges which in part is subsidized by a tax on gasoline. If you live in many urban areas, mass transit is subsidized. I'm not arguing that transportation should not be subsidized, but am perplexed when it is OK to increase or add new taxes for transportation, but balk at doing the same for a basic necessity (dare I say right) to health care or affordable basic insurance.
I'd like to see any numbers and studies that refute the assertion we pay almost twice as much our GDP as other industrialized nations.
BP

I have been fortunate to be relatively healthy and insured my entire life. If I have to pay some additional $$$ to provide insurance for Mr. Big Screen and the Prada toting lady mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd gladly do it, provided that at least a few of the truly needy and/or uninsurable people get some reasonable level of coverage. Maybe it was the way I was brought up. We were poor, but were always taught to feel compassion and help those less fortunate.
Bill

Thank you.


We cover the roads, we cover the fire & police departments, we cover the sewage and sanitation...
We could just as easily say go out and build your own road, your own sewage plant and god forbid we took the government out of the fire prevention and protection industry... Can you imagine having to call your insurance company to request a fireman or cop while your house or neighbors house burns or is being robbed?. It's the same thing.

As for the argument that private entities can't compete with public ones - that's worked out well for UPS & Fedex.

Well said.

As hard as it is to fathom, many years ago, fire protection was private and provided on a subscription basis. If your house was on fire but did not have purchased protection, the fire fighters would literally watch your house burn to the ground. Thankfully that was a century or two ago and not the case today.

Again for clarification, I am for a single payer system, but understand that is not politically feasible in this time. I support the President and his efforts to partner with Big Pharma, Big Insurance & Big Med to lower costs. I also would be satisfied with a reform package that didn't include a public options if a compromise over non-profit co-ops were to be reached.

the Civil rights act was achieved with significant opposition and 40 years in hindsight it was the right thing to do. It wasn't perfect but it gave us a platform upon which to improve and grow. I see a compromise on med reform in the same way. I have my ideals but I am no ideologue. Doing nothing is not an option and I am sad about those voices on the left that would rather scrap all reform efforts if the public option is not included. I am also sad about the right wing voices that claim that reform equals death panels, socialism and that the USA has the best system in the world.

The path forward is pragmatic and achieves what it can in its own time. One step at a time.

oh I also agree tort reform is needed. and I am sad to not see it included in the administrations proposals.

My beliefs lie pretty much exactly down the middle. I just don't think forcing ANYTHING upon folks who don't want it is the way to go, nor do I think we can continue on without trying to do something to improve the current system. Also, If healthcare flops, and there are no Repubs on boards, the Dems are going to take the heat for ALL of it. Not a good idea to do this in a partisan manner.

The Dems got the votes....if they have the political courage they can do what they want. But it's politics....not what's in the public's best interests.

Big Pharm signed on because they don't want to be left out of whatever passes.

I bet you that come January some crappy watered-down bill called Health Care Reform with pass. It will be meaningless and accomplish nothing. Congress and the President will pat eat other on the back and tell the public that they worked so hard looking out for you when all they care about is their own political hides.

Nothing is way better than much of what's been proposed. If I wanted single payer I'd be in Canada....interesting that I work with so many docs who moved here from Canada.

- More deregulation of the health care industry, allowing companies to team up and purchase insurance through association health plans, and allowing the purchase of out-of-state insurance to increase competition.

----

As for nationalized health care - No. Single payer - No.

Oh yeah. The free market argument. Deregulate. That worked so well with the S&L's, and worked so well in the recent banking/insurance debacle. The "free market" is really corporate welfare when the speculators, after making tons of money, inevitably break down, and are then judged too big to fail, and subsequently bailed out by the taxpayers.

I assume you noticed the massive bailouts (bigger than the ten year health reform cost) that we just had at the end of the Bush Administration. Have you forgotten already, about free market "glory?"

The free market in health care isn't working. It ethically should not be a "for-profit" industry. We've seen where it leads us: to skyrocketing costs and marginal outcomes. (we're close to Costa Rica and Tunisia at least, whooo hoooo, for only twice the price.) Give me a break! We're getting ripped off!!

I hear something every day that raises more questions. Will health care be rationed? How are we paying for this? Will illegal immigrants be eligible? While I don't believe for a second that there will be death panels, I do believe that there will be rationing. What's the point of everyone having health care if nobody can get in to see a doctor?

If this can be done properly, and I can truly keep my insurance if I'm happy, (no fingers crossed behind back), I'm not against it, but if it's going to be done, I want it done correctly. As in, why the rush? I also don't see the harm in forcing Congress to adopt the plan they want us to use. Fairs fair.

Ahem, your health care is already being rationed. Rationed by the insurance companies that decide what is covered and what isn't. Sometimes arbitrarily. Except, they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits. That means it is their responsibility, by law, to deny you claims as often as legally possible. That is rationing. That is our current system. If you don't have insurance (a bunch of our population), you're pretty much out of luck if you have serious health problems. Don't expect chemo or any live-saving measures. Go buy a lottery ticket. You're in the richest country, and the majority is being fooled.