"$0.14 out of every dollar collected in fees for services to patients goes toward buying medical malpractice insurance."

What percentage of the total bill are these "fees for services"? This is a grossly misleading statistic.

Malpractice insurance does cause a larger amount of costs than just buying malpractice insurance, but don't sully the point with misleading statistics.

The extra costs from malpractice lawsuits come from the huge number of extra tests and protocols that doctors must adhere to to protect themselves from lawsuits, not the cost of the malpractice insurance itself which is not nearly as high as quoted in this article. Lower cost methods of treatment are not an option due to the fact that the patient can come back and sue if the doctor hasn't exactly followed the precedent of spending tens of thousands of dollars on marginally beneficial tests and procedures.

Watta lens.

Based on the number of people not finding the article helpful, it appears we have a number of Democrats who live in the fantasy world where $12 trillion in debts don't matter, $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities are just an annoyance for our grandchildren, and the State can do a much better job making your decisions for you.

Wake up people. This is national suicide.

you also will not find in the constitution
the right for all expense paid schooling
the biggest boondoggle ;the public school system

It appears we also have an MV author who lives in a fantasy world, where it's actually true that "no one in this country is dying because they lack health care. Every person in this country, including illegal aliens, can walk into an emergency room and they'll be treated by the best doctors and nurses in the world."

You can NOT be serious. My own father died prematurely because his health-care plan wasn't accepted at a cancer treatment center that specialized in his particular cancer. And he had employer coverage and was not an illegal immigrant.

Unless of course you're talking about ailments like broken bones instead of brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, or sickle cell disease, the latter three of which can, of course, be treated in the ER.

Please. It's you that needs to wake up.

There are so many things wrong with this article, I don't know where to begin. Please don't hide behind the label of "Minyanville staff." Have the courage to put your name on this piece of trash!

Yes, the right to health care most certainly IS in the Declaration of Independence under the phrase "right to LIFE."

Oh, and by the way, the button to vote that this article is "Unhelpful" has been turned off. I punched it twice and both times my vote registered as "Helpful."

Your contempt for your readers shows just how much validity we can give to your so-called statistics.

Whose going to pay the bill?

Our children and grandchildren already owe $100 trillion.

You liberals never answer the question. Who pays the F$%ing bill?

You are really observant. My name is at the top of the article.

You have your right to life. Aren't you alive? You have absolutely no right to healthcare, just like you don't have a right to food. You get a job and you pay for the necessities of life.

Don't tell me how wrong the article is. Make your arguments. You can't because the facts do not support your liberal dogma.

Who said I was a liberal? Not wise to make assumptions (I'm sure you know what happens when you do).

FYI -- pointing to an invalid, erroneous, or incomplete argument does not equal claiming to have the solution.

Who pays? How will this be done without doubling taxes? The CBO isn't making these numbers up, which is the part that no one on the left wants to face. Medicare is on an unsustainable path, and no one has a solution for it.

The problem is that those who want health care for all applaud themselves for their lofty ideals and congratulate themselves for their magnanimity in campaigning for it and spending other people's money. However, there are certain stark realities involved, and costs are first and foremost. You can't have ideals without practical application, and practicalities for how to pay for it over the long term are entirely missing from the arguments of those who want health care for all.

The standard response when these questions are asked is "you are just part of the party of NO!", which is just a simplistic attempt to demonize anyone asking honest questions. Saying "yes we can!" is great campaigning. But now that the left is in charge, the appropriate question is "how will we?". And that is the question that they can't answer without 1900 pages of legalese that pretty much every congressman/woman admits that they will not read or understand before voting on it. Shameful.

Maybe you should put some thought into solutions rather than trusting that government has all the answers.

You don't have a solution and neither does the government. That is why passing this bill will be national suicide.

from mr. quinn:
"The fact is that no one in this country is dying because they lack health care. Every person in this country, including illegal aliens, can walk into an emergency room and they'll be treated by the best doctors and nurses in the world."

from harvard:
Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year

the link is too big for minyanville... google it.

yes, anyone can walk into an ER (and be hounded by bill collectors for years--it is not "free"). but an ER won't do preventative care required to catch cancer early, as one example. try walking into an ER for a physical.

I cannot fathom how people believe they have a RIGHT to health care at someone else's expense!

Who said I don't put thought into solutions? Who said I trust the government has all the answers? Who said that just because I and the government may or may not have a workable solution that you, in fact, do? I shall explain this to you again: I pointed out an invalid, erroneous, and incomplete argument of yours. All you've done is make assumptions about me.

And swearing at people doesn't seem appropriate, either. Hopefully, you have a good health-care plan in case you're hit with a stress-induced panic attack. But then again, they'll probably treat that in the ER.

I think it was Harvard MBA's that crashed the financial system too.

I wouldn't put too much weight on a Harvard study.

Don't start a post saying I live in a fantasy world and not expect to get a response back. I love how people love to comment, but when confronted they get offended sooo easily.

My arguments are sound. You have no argument.

Liberal do gooders ran up the national debt? Demonizing Democrats is easy. Demonizing trial lawyers is easy. The free market has failed. FAILED. The only fantasy world that I see is the tendency of people to blame the "liberals" for the massive debts piled up under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush 2. Clinton gave Bush II surpluses as far as the eye could see, a balanced budget, and he reduced the national debt.

How convenient that you forget about these statistics. No blame for the Republicans who got us into this mess? No blame for the free market freaks whose policies got us into this mess? No blame for Greenspan whose incompetence and hubris got us into this mess?

People who espouse these views have been so discredited and reviled that I am shocked you would post such a boat load of bullshit.

Bush and the Republicans drove this nation into the ground, and with Greenspan's blessing and help, combined with free market policies that have destroyed our economy.

Once again, a Democrat has to come in and clean up the turds left by the elephants and Ayn Rand worshippers who ran amok.

Even Greenspan admitted that his free market worship was at the root of our current problems. Why he can walk the streets without getting pelted by rotten tomatoes is beyond me.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."
Clinton
President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history     

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.

The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.

"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.

"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.

Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."

That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.

Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.

"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
         

Marginal bracket at 90%...how's that answer. By the way, that is from smack-dab in the center of the country. Rein in war waste, fraud and abuse...State sponsered capitalism on behalf of wealth is a long fixed playing field. Either level the playing field or give some back. Stop renting Senators. Transparency and reguation with teeth in derivative markets. Separate lending and investment banking. I could go on for 6 pages but cost saving is not in wealths interest. We are not allowed that national debate.

You clearly have no idea what my views are. I have written multiple articles for this site destroying Bush, Greenspan and the Republican war machine. The Republicans and Democrats are both responsible for this national tragedy.

Who pays the bill? Give me your answer, not the usual rhetoric.

For liberals, conservatives, communists, and libertarians. This is a much scaled down version of the article. To read the full version go to this link:

http://theburningplatform.com/economy/the-nanny-state

@ LLOYD
The same people who believe a country like the United States should provide a basic standard of living with public schools, fire departments, police, libraries etc..

I personally don't like the idea of the uninsured waiting until they are so sick that they have to go to the hospital to get 'free' care. That seems a bit third world-ish.

You may want to check back to your original response to me. YOU'RE the one that made mention of a fantasy world and got a response because of it.

I think there are some definite steps people could agree on to start reducing costs. Things that work in other countries: electronic records, electronic id cards, competing insurance options, not allowing insurance companies to profit, mandating health insurance, having two tiers of insurance: a public health insurance plan and private insurers that could potentially provide better care and be more expensive than the public option.

Chris, I know who the people are. I said I cannot fathom their reasoning.

You, also do not know who I am, or what my beliefs are as well. No, free market fantasy is what is responsible for much of the destruction in our government and economy. Free Market lies is what led Bush to think that cutting taxes for the rich in war time was a good idea. Free market lies is what led Bush to cut taxes for the rich, because we were told that "they would pay for themselves".

Greenspan and the rest of the free market morons destroyed this country. Unfettered capitalism does not work. It only took 30 years to destroy this economy. Good work Free Marketers!

The solution, roll back the tax cuts, back to what they were in the Reagan years. Roll back the corporate welfare that has allowed many large corporations to pay little or no tax. Ban all securitized instruments. No more Enron accounting schemes. Cut the military spending, The defense appropriation that was just signed was for $680 billion. The annual cost of the healthcare bill is $90 billion. Do the math.

You speak of waste and fraud in Medicare, cut the waste and fraud and no bid contracts in the military and you can pay for the healthcare bill, and fix Medicare.

Railing stupidly about the Democrats or the Republicans while ignoring the devastation that the free market proponents have heaped upon this country is counterproductive, and really makes you appear incompetent and out of touch with reality.

The Free Market experiment of the past 30 years has failed. And now the sane members of this country need to put this country back together again.

This is where you are badly mistaken.

We have not had free markets since 1913. The financial system has been manipulated by the politicians of both parties along with the Federal Reserve for decades. It didn't start with Reagan. It started with Woodrow Wilson. Once politicians had a printing press and the ability to tax individuals, they were free to promise their constituents the world. The military industrial complex has controlled Congress since the 1950's.

The result is $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were passed by FDR and LBJ.

The $12 trillion national debt is jointly owned by the Democrats and Republicans. We have had no free markets.

Now explain how instituting 1,990 pages of new government rules and regulations while insuring 46 million more people is going to reduce costs and save us?

Quinn- Thanks for a well-written and informative article.

Camille Paglia wrote in Slate recently that unfortunately liberalism, has become close minded fundamentalism. This thinking brought us to the point of seeing "health care" as only realizable via financing. Given the propensity to finance everything down to Starbucks Lattes, perhaps its not such a surprise. Insurance "schemes" (as called properly in the UK) could never, NEVER work if the Dx and Tx of human beings (diagnosis and treatment btw) was anything but very predictable. Hence, when we would make health insurance illegal, starting say, tomorrow, then health care would be delivered at the rate one individual could pay for it. Speaking to the target group (taxes to pay for what is proposed), the 18-34 year olds who need only to stop leaks (bleeding), repair things broken, and the odd bacterial or viral infection that rarely needs "House" MD to divine the right answer for.

The drugs I learned about in Nursing school have not changed, but claims by Pharma that we MUST have something new and different, have fatuously ratcheted up the cost of staple drugs. Speaking of which, you can get most of what you need, from the same factories in Puerto Rico, for 1/10 to 1/3 the cost by shopping in Mexico, India, or Canada. Why not? Because Fed Rules and regs prohibit the individual from Dx and Tx of him or herself at their own risk.

What is the should cost of an MD?, a Nurse? a Pharmacist? Right now they are all in Fed protected cartels. Look at medical tourism to India, where you can get a heart bypass for 1/5 the cost of the us... thats 50k, vs 250k.

My colleague opened up a cross border HMO near ElPaso. Cost to members? only 40% of the US equivalent, using same MDs, labs, procedures, instruments. SAvings? Not having to pay all the Fed taxes, rules and regs. They don't protect us, they protect a cartel.

Medicing is not a mystery, that is how, and the only reason insurance "schemes" can operate.

Think for yourselves, 90% of what you need in medicine, you can get foryourself, if only the FEd will allow you to do so.

Health Insurance IS NOT Health Care

Agree it is national suicide. Thinking that GovCo can prevent all ill from befalling, is simply batty. We would have plenty of savings to do advanced research, if we did not hike up the cost, via Pharma, MD, Hospital etc cartels, for the daily staples which we could procure for ourselves.

I find it hillarious, that all those U2 fans voting for Obama, are going to get th el argest increase in their taxes, being forced to buy insurance in the 16 years of their life when they could just blow it off, or wait till an employer picks it up.

Why can't citizens shop for health care abroad, including drugs, like one can for any other commodity? health care is the one commodity which has been spared.... from commoditization.

PJ O'Rourke said it best: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait till you see what it costs when its free".

These health care proposals are NOTHING about how to reduce costs, and everything about how everyone is going to be forced to take out another loan to pay existing Fed Protected cartels.

Having just moved from Germany, I can share that the most politically active front is to obtain a private health care system. Why oh why would 80% of the country be trying to obtain such a thing?

Because when you are over 40, each time you get sick, the Krankenkasse Amt makes a determination whether you have enough residual value and working years left to make it worth it to society to invest in your care.

Think about that people, investigate, rather than just hear and trust how "wonderful" everythiing is in Europe. NONE of my employees in the UK, NONE used the NHS. ALL, purchased private work arounds.

Don't drink your bath water, drain it.

Its been mentioned before, but I want everyone to be clear on this point.

The healthcare market is NOT A FREE MARKET.

As to why its not a free market, its due to multiple contradictory laws imposed on doctors, nurses, hospitals, insurance companies, etc.

"Based on the number of people not finding the article helpful, it appears we have a number of Democrats who live in the fantasy world where $12 trillion in debts don't matter, $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities are just an annoyance for our grandchildren, and the State can do a much better job making your decisions for you."

You cannot argue logic with people that make decisions purely based on emotions and who more than frequently have no part in bearing the costs of their decisions. This whole discussion goes to prove that emphatically.

Remember, the public ends when those that can vote themselves the public fisc outnumber those that have to pay for it. We are THERE now.

Main point is U.S. spending is higher than other countries as shown in first graph. Nowhere in the article do you show how the other countries spend less than we do. The whole article is a listing of generally held beliefs that the gov'mnt is inefficient. While I believe that too, I just want good reporting that shows real facts...

The real reason for exploding med costs is , besides a lawyer dominated government this: Any decrepit person has access to increasing insanely complicated and expensive methods, just to prolong their lifes. What macaber nonsense! Since we are going to heaven according to the religions, why trying to prolong the misery of hopelessly decrepit people? IF we don't give organ transplants and huge medications to people that brought ill health upon themselves by morbid obesity, smoking and alcohol and drug abuse then the cost for the sane population would be drastically lower. If we keep on the present road of giving everybody the right to a more and more expensive and complicated medical care we can end up to pretty much just work all our life just for life extending medicine.

Excellent article! Informative and realistic!
As my macro Professor used to say, "Good Politics is terrible economics."

Oh, what BS!!! Docs are same greedy animals as WallStreeters!
Ok! Let's start with real examples. My friend had 2 warts on fingers and came to a physician to remove it. For some reason, physician lost her payment and she was able to see the total bill approved by insurance. That was $500 where cryogenic procedure and each wart was duplicated. I had that many years go. How you do it: get a small duar of liquid N2. Get ear sticks. Touch N2 and than the wart about 10 times. This takes 5 min. DONE! I did it myself and recently I repeated it for free with someone else. My friend said that the doc did the same thing. Tell me, why the f**K it costs $500? LET THE DOCs GO TO HELL! Second example: end of life and medicare?An ex-prof here around 75 yrs old had heart tubes. He was feeling just fine. Recently office called him and they said that the tubes are old and he needs a replacement just because it is. They did a serious operation for my taxpayer's money as he had medicare. Result? His old tubes were ok. His heart could not survive an operation itself. He died a few days later. Don't touch old guys too much! Too much money also are stolen on cancer terminal patients, who just pray to die instead of be barely alive moneysuckers for the last 6 months. The stat shows the last year of cancer patients takes more money than all the previous life? LET'EM DIE IN PEACE! Contrasts to a post I read in my country:"my mom was suffering so much in pain for a week of cancer pain. Docs said she's done now, they cannot really help, and it will be very painful death, as she has too strong organism otherwise. I was home with her all the time.I prayed for her all night and God heard me. Mom died peacefully in the morning with a smile on her face.THANK YOU GOD!"
Oh, another example. I went to a dentist recently. They did X-Ray first time in my life. They were astonished I have not been at dentist for 6 yrs and I have never seen a dentist in the USA. They looked at my results. And then, that receptionist was very imposing that I musta gotta deep cleaning for my own money from my pocket. $200. They refused to do normal cleaning they had to do according to my policy for free. She said I need that deep thing because they were unable to see any holes or problems old or new, nothing, on my XRay. I said no and left. I checked all the resources and found out that in my case the deep cleaning might have been really harmful. (I'm 33 years old). And they wanted ME to pay for the intended damage? Is it medicare?? I don't believe it. Oh maybe medicare patients are responsible for the extreme MD education costs?
When my daughter went to ER, she was there 30 min and her allergy had already subsided thus they wrote "no change in condition". They did not do anything... but the bill was for $1000, 500 was "a rent of the room" - there were no instruments there. They did not prescribe epipen. My husband had to call those bas***s "give me epipen!!" because he knew about it from our country where it is cheap LIFE-SAVING allergy therapy sold OTC. Here they did not do anything and did not tell anything for $1000. They wanted her to be on verge of death next time, so they will apply epipen (instead of her parents) and rake up the cost to 10K!! Anything life-saving in this strategy? NO. PURE BIZ. She could die? Oh, what a problem if they already spent 14c per $1 for “malpractice insurance”! I believe there must be NO SUCH INSURANCE!!!!

Go back to your socialist paradise where everything is free.

Note, you go PERSONAL in your reply to my post, which means you have nothing to reply to the question posted.
Overall, the article presented a lot of info, however mired into insulting Democrats instead of real suggestions how to fix it. HOW do YOU propose to fix the healthcare?
Removing Medicare\aid is not a solution - as ANY party who proposes this will lose too many electors.
Besides, why not to mention that Bush created the situation which led to a current crash. Democrats only accepted his legacy. It is good they are at least trying to do something to change this debt situation. They did not create it.

I agree with everybody saying here that healthcare is NOT a free market. My take: whether make it a free market OR control it by the gov IN FULL. I'm not in position to decide whichever is better, however any of these two is better than the current constant fraud.

There were many suggestions to fix the existing system in the article. You choose not to listen to them because it doesn't match your socialist agenda.

I wrote the article so don't tell me I don't have anything to say.

I'm glad your savior Obama has reversed all of Bush's mistakes. Let's see. He has propped up fraudulent banks, just like Bush. He has increased Defense spending, just like Bush. He has increased our Middle East wars, just like Bush.

You socialists can't even tell when you are lying to yourselves.