Americans Want More Health Care Investment by Government

[Frodo]

Americans Want More Health Care Investment
March 25, 2006

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States believe their federal administration is not doing enough to help them with the cost of medical services, according to a poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 70 per cent of respondents think the government spends too little on health care.

Polling Data
---------------------------

Do you think the government spends too much, too little or the right amount on health care?

Too much                       11%

Too little                         70%

Right amount                 11%

Don’t know / Refused      8%


Do you think the average American spends too much, too little or the right amount on health care?

Too much                       65%

Too little                        17%

Right amount                 12%

Don’t know / Refused      6%


Source: Princeton Survey Research Associates / Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,405 American adults, conducted from Mar. 8 to Mar. 12, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

[A18]

I really wouldn't mind if something terrible happened to absolutely every person voting with the 70% majority.

[TheresNoMoney]

The private health insurance is incredibly wasteful and inefficient, and this is reflected in the soaring costs.

[A18]

Uh, we do not have a free market in health care. It is loaded with government distortions. How stupid some people are is highly amusing: "government is more efficient than private enterprise."

[TheresNoMoney]

Uh, we do not have a free market in health care. It is loaded with government distortions. How stupid some people are is highly amusing: "government is more efficient than private enterprise."

This has been explained a hundred times on this forum.

Private health insurance has administrative/overhead costs of 25%-30%, while Medicare/Medicaid has administrative/overhead costs of 2%-5%. Now tell me which one is more efficient??

[A18]

Third party payment (a government-induced phenomenon) is the main problem with our "private" health care.

[TheresNoMoney]

You're clueless on this issue, A18.

You're only going by your strict ideology.

[Nym90]

I agree that government should spend more on health care. Obviously we have to be careful not to create a run away bureauracy, but something modelled on the Canadian or UK systems would work well in my opinion. Universal coverage should be the eventual goal.

[A18]

The tax code obviously encourages third-party payment, and you'd have to be an idiot (yes, I realize that is a label that pretty accurately describes you) to not realize the problems that causes. You don't spend someone else's money as carefully as you spend your own.

Everyone has become so used to employer-provided health care, but it's completely illogical. Why single out health care? Why not food? Food is more essential to life than health care. Why not exempt the cost of food from taxes if provided by the employer?

We didn't always have this problem, mind you. Expressed as a fraction of national income, health care expenditures went from 3 percent in 1919 to about 5 percent in 1946 to the nearly 20 percent we have now.

[John Dibble]

I have to wonder if the people who took this poll actually know how much the government does spend on healthcare - I mean, it already spends more than other nations, doesn't it?

[MODU]

hahaha . . . what a crock.  The whole Health Care system needs to be redone, not made worse by putting more government fingers into the stew.  The "overhead" for Medicare might be low, but their service is slow and below par, and you are highly limited in some areas as to where or when you can get service if it isn't an emergency.  Private care, on the other hand, tends to have a better turn around time and is more flexible as to where you can get service.  Those are more than enough reasons alone for NOT going with a government system, and that's not even getting into the negative impact of governmental spending on private service rates.

[angus]

The private health insurance is incredibly wasteful and inefficient, and this is reflected in the soaring costs.

it is.  and that's why the poll has a bullsh**t premise.  the people have been brainwashed to believe that the government knows what's best for them, and as a result a bandaid costs seven dollars when a physician puts it on you, rather than the seven cents it ought to cost.  Of course they want the government paying for their insurance.  But where do you think the money for the insurance comes from??!  It comes from you and it comes from me.  What we need is for the government to back off!  Not get more engaged.  what americans want is cheaper medicine.  that's all, and they have been brainwashed into believing that more government control will make their meds cheaper.  hell, I can't even go into my bathroom and take a little pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, and iodine, and make crystal methamphetamine without Big Brother beathing down my throat.  That's a felony you know.  Total BS.  along with most other drug and medical laws.  as long as we continue to buy into the brainwashing, we'll continue to pay too much for drugs.  Let us self-medicate, I say.  Let us synthesize our own, even.  Adding more government to the mix certainly isn't the solution.  What we need is less government in this matter, not more. 

[dazzleman]

Adding more government to the mix certainly isn't the solution.  What we need is less government in this matter, not more. 

I agree completely with this.  I shudder to think of the consequences of government control of health care.

[angus]

and that's Modu's point too, I think.  the fact that we're spending about fifteen percent of our aggregate GDP on medicine and medical services is every bit related to the fact that the government started to get into the game.  I agree that one solution to the problem is to continue with the bloated overpriced system and continue to convince the people into believing they're too stupid to self-medicate, and ought to be encouraged to sue a physician every time he makes a mistake, etc.  And that's obviously the socialist solution.  But the other solution, the libertarian solution, is just to have the government divorce itself completely from medicine and medical care.  Let us self-medicate, let us synthesize our own narcotics, let us deliver our own babies, etc.  That way, I can still choose to have a Berkeley-educated physican deliver my son, as in fact I did, but instead of it costing some nameless, faceless, company about ten thousand dollars (costs which it no doubt passes on to my family and me), it costs me about four hundred dollars.  The silver sulfadiazine that some nurse rubs on my arm after I have get a terrible case of road rash costs me about two hundred cents, instead of two hundred dollars.  I absolutely agree with the folks who think we're paying far too much for health care.  But I recongnize that the reason that we're paying so much for that health care is because of the bureaucratic system we set in place to govern our health care.  So we have two choices:  either continue to believe the faulty analysis, and just make it socialized medicine.  Or go back to the way it was in 1945, when you could call a physician out to your house.  He'd come, because he wasn't worried that you'd sue him for an amount equal to about three times his annual income, and he'd treat you and you could afford to pay him, because the medicine he applied didn't cost seven thousand percent of its production value because of lawyers, bureaucracy, and government salaries.  About 96 cents of every dollar you pay for medicine or medical service goes to overhead.  And that's really the problem.  So if we're going to keep the overhead, and most folks have been duped into believing it's necessary, then we need the socialist aspect.  At least poor people do.  But the better solution is to get rid of the lawyers, the bureaucracy, and the laws that constrain the system. 

[angus]

You mean they want more:

1) Socialism?

2) The lazy way out?

3) Free loading?

4) More slaps in the face to capitalism?

5) A more sh**tty economy?

 no, buddy.  they're not lazy.  And in fact they're not stupid either.  They have just been brainwashed.  I don't blame the Democrats and I don't blame the Republicans.  I hold them equally responsible.  The phrase "by prescription only" ought not even be a part of our vocabulary.  How dare they!  And that's the AMA and their laywers and their lobby doing that.  And about 75 percent of all physicians are republicans.  On the other hand, about two-thirds of all lawyers are democrats.  And the tort, and the sue-happy mentality is their doing.  So it's not a Left versus Right issue.  It's a broken system.  And most people agree that it is.  But where we disagree is on the solution.  I think the solution is for the government to remove itself entirely from the process.  I'm quite capable of self-diagnosis and self-medication and even synthesis of the appropriate chemical substances.  And in those cases when I'm not, I can seek help from educated qualified people with or without licenses, so long as I trust them.  The folks I don't trust are not the MDs (though I mistrust their motives usually).  The folks I don't trust are their lobbyists.  Well, and even that's not entirely accurate.  I do, technically, trust the motives of the physicans and their lobby:  it's about making money.  But they have exploited the poor just as much as anyone else has.  But then my portfolio is Pharma-heavy, I must admit.  And my Big Drug stocks are doing better, on average, than most of my investments.  And so they will continue.  I have no issues with intellectual property.  and in fact we buy Brand Name over Generic often, since I generally believe you get what you pay for.  And I'm a big fan of pushing China, India, Indonesia, et al, to get with the program in terms of intellectual property.  But our problems go way beyond the high price of prescription drugs.  Our problem is not that we have inadequate health care either, because (for those that can afford it) we have the best health care out there.  (sure some have posted that certain tests are not recommended, etc., and if you're not getting a particular test then that's your own damned fault.  If I learn, for example, that I might have a particular type of cancer, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll read everything that has been published about testing for that cancer.  well I digress........

the point is:  folks know they're paying too much for health care.  But what they may not realize is that most of the dollars they're paying goes to lawyers, focus groups, and think tanks.  After all, a band-aid doesn't really cost seven dollars!  My conclusion is simple:  since it is bureaucracy and government constraint that caused the cost of health care in this society to rise far more than the CPI, then why not just have the government out of the business.  Keep an open mind.  Before we decide that Libertarianism in health care doesn't work, let's give it a try for 30 or 40 years.   All you "liberals" should put yourself to the test:  how Liberal are you really?  Are you willing to legalize every drug, every treatment, every procedure?  Are you willing to let Big Government come off its high horse?  If it ends up making us spend more than 15 percent of our aggregate GDP on Health Care, or if the quality diminishes, then you can say "I told you so"  But really, the exhorbitant costs was created by bureaucracy, so by Ockham's Razor, isn't the appropriate solution less government involvement?

[Sam Spade]

Angus's posts on this thread and this issue really are incredibly top-notch for this forum, for any forum period.  Cheers!

[opebo]

So it's not a Left versus Right issue.

This is true, but deceptive.   The costliness of health care is almost entirely due to government intervention on behalf of interest groups the Right-wing supports - the drug companies and doctors.  Only a very small part of the cost comes from State action on behalf of  'left' groups such as lawyers, and in fairness most of that systemic effect comes from the structure of our legal system itself, not any recent legislation.  I for one would be much happier to see the GOP drug company lobbyists tossed out of the system before we destroy our time honoured common law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not have libertarianism in supply - i.e. no prescriptions, no copyright protection, etc., but still have the State pay the bills?  In Thailand most everything is available over the counter, and copyright law is largely ignored, so that care is exceedingly cheap, but there are still subsidized State hospitals for the poor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That isn't accurate, angus.  There are laws in place which privilege certain groups - the drug companies and the physicians - but the operations of the scam are carried out by those private entities.  The only 'bureaucracy' involved would be courts/police which enforce laws against copyright infringement and who prosecute people who sell drugs without a physicians license.  It is also a court, and not a bureaucracy, which allows the poor to sue for harmful medical treatments, though this is a traditional aspect of our legal system, and not based on 'special influence' lobbying. 

A bureaucracy is not merely a law - it is an entity which puts policy into effect, such as the Social Security administration, or the AFDC office.  Your complaint is against not a bureaucracy, but against the privileges gained by private industry and professional groups through influence upon the legislature.  I only stress this point because I think that bureaucracies themselves are some of our most admirable and useful institutions, and are often unfairly maligned for bad policies which they do not create.  'Bad' policy is created by powerful interest groups within society, typically the wealthy.

[Nym90]

Good points Angus. I'm not as knowledgeable of the health care issue as I am on most other domestic issues so I appreciate this thread.

I agree that over regulation is a definite problem. To that extent, government regulation should be pared down. I do feel that the FDA is overly cautious about approving new medicines.

However, the tremendous expense to employers of providing health care is a responsibility which I think can and should be shifted more to the government. I feel a single payer plan would be the best choice.

This wouldn't increase bureaucracy as far as I can see; the government would simply become an insurance company, essentially. Private insurers have plenty of bureacracy of their own which greatly increases costs. Obviously private insurance would still exist as an option, and would likely provide greater coverage than the public system would.

It is easy to deceive the public into thinking that universal health care will mean government control of hospitals and the like, but I don't see any reason why this would be necessary or desireable.

[David S]

My guess is that we will eventually end up with a socialized health care system. (I'm in a pessimistic mood today).
 This is what the likely outcome will be:
1) Euphoria- all health care is free. The system seems to be working.
2) Costs continue to rise, but faster than before.
3) To deal with the rising costs Government raises taxes. Taxpayers unhappy.
4) Costs continue to rise
5) Government enacts wage and price controls on doctors and other health care professionals. Doctors get upset with the caps on their wages.
6) Costs still going up
7) Shortages, rationing, and waiting lists. Patients get pissed.
8 Doctors shortages start showing up as pissed off doctors leave the profession, causing the treatment shortages to worsen.
9  Ultimate result- high cost, shortages, waiting lists.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a bunch of out of touch poor haters. We're losing jobs because of our sh**tty health care system.

[Gabu]

I have to wonder if the people who took this poll actually know how much the government does spend on healthcare - I mean, it already spends more than other nations, doesn't it?

I have a feeling that the biggest thing you can take from this poll is that people are dissatisfied with health care to a large degree.  I say this because the natural response in most peoples' minds is "bad service = more money needed".  Polls showing what the majority think should be done does not necessarily reflect what should actually be done because - let's face it - the wide majority of people simply either don't care or are too busy to actually research topics such as this one in depth before forming an opinion.  What they do show, however, is areas where something needs to be done, whether or not it turns out to be what the public actually wants done.

And to anyone rushing to call me a DINO or whatever, I'm not saying that we should do the opposite of what the people want and privatize health care or something.  All I'm saying is why you should not just immediately rush to do exactly what the people want you to do before careful analysis of what the effects exactly will be.

[John Dibble]

I have to wonder if the people who took this poll actually know how much the government does spend on healthcare - I mean, it already spends more than other nations, doesn't it?

I have a feeling that the biggest thing you can take from this poll is that people are dissatisfied with health care to a large degree.  I say this because the natural response in most peoples' minds is "bad service = more money needed".

No disagreement there. It's the same with education - some people think simply pumping more money in will solve all our problems.

[angus]

providing health care is a responsibility which I think can and should be shifted more to the government. I feel a single payer plan would be the best choice.

This wouldn't increase bureaucracy as far as I can see; the government would simply become an insurance company, essentially. Private insurers have plenty of bureacracy of their own which greatly increases costs. Obviously private insurance would still exist as an option, and would likely provide greater coverage than the public system would.

It is easy to deceive the public into thinking that universal health care will mean government control of hospitals and the like, but I don't see any reason why this would be necessary or desireable.

as I said, we all see a problem, but we differ on the best solution.  And as far as I can tell, the options are socialized medicine (and not the unfortunate system Canada has either, but real English-style, or better yet Arabian-style, socialized medicine) or a completely privatized system.  I favor the latter, mostly as I indicated, because excess constraints have caused us to have to spend a huge chunk of our money on healthcare-related expenses.  Something like fifteen percent of our aggregate GDP.  I never paid much attention to it either, frankly, since I've always had either employer-provided insurance at no cost to me, which I never used, or had no insurance.  And it really didn't matter to me whether my employer didn't provide any insurance.  In fact, in those instances in which I was given the choice between paying a hundred or so a month for a policy or being uninsured, I'd consistently opt for being uninsured.  That money does more good for me in my own savings account, or in my pocket, than in some insurance company's account, I figure.  But now that I have two dependents it becomes an issue.  You really can't go without insurance if you are about to have a baby, or during the first few years of a child's life.  There are so many checkups, appointments, well-visits, immunizations, and the like.  The bills have run, counting his birth and counting his period in utero (here I'll digress from my usual position that a fetus isn't yet a human just for the purpose of this argument), counting fifteen months of life and nine months of gestation, or two years total, the bills have totalled approximately sixteen thousand dollars, of which I think we actually paid one thousand, three hundred and fifty.  Obviously absorbing sixteen thousand, or eight thousand dollars per year for two years, would be a stretch.  Not impossible for us, but it would have limited the amount I could use for vacations, my retirement account, the Roth IRA, etc.  You know, we all have to have priorities unless the money is unlimited.  And for most of us it's not.  And I continue to believe that the sixteen thousand dollar figure should be more like maybe nine hundred or so, total.  But because of legal constraints, bureaucracy, lawyer and consulting fees to hospitals, regulations, and the like, it's sixteen thousand.  I'd have been happier not to have any insurance at all, and get the same good quality of health care, and have just paid all the bills out of my pocket, if those bills were reasonable.  But because the system is so bloated, we need insurance.  Of course socialized medicine is another alternative, except that in that case I still pay too much, but it gets leached out of me in the form of taxes.  Whether or not I even use the system!  And that's the rub.  Because until I'm old, sick, or have a small child, I don't even use the system.  I'm pretty low maintenance and I really bristle at the thought of having fifteen percent of my income, on top of the taxes we already pay, going into the pockets of lawyers, congressmen, and lobbyists, which would certainly be the case if there's even more government involvement.  Seriously, the poor could afford to pay a physician the small amount he'd charge for most services if he didn't have all the regulations, tort, fees, malpractice insurance, and bureaucracy hanging over his head.

[dazzleman]

angus, you're very right to point out the legal angle to this problem.

Our ailing and dysfunctional legal system is being used as a means of legalized extortion to milk the health care system of huge amounts of money that go into the pockets of ambulance-chasing lawyers.

A health care system with the government as the sole payer will not change this.  Taxpayers will simply assume billions of dollars of illegitimate legal liabilities directly, rather than indirectly as is currently the case.

Until the legal system is fixed, there is no point in putting through any type of real reform, because the current legal system is a dealbreaker as far as the success of any reform is concerned.

[angus]

oh, I've talked to my share of physicians over the past two years.  My wife is very picky about physicians in general.  In fact, I used to wonder what all the fuss about "choice" was when people talk about health insurance.  I'm not that picky.  But then I usually diagnose myself and I usually have a particular chemical compound in mind and request it specifically.  So any licensed person will do.  (though as I said it's a great injustice that I need prescriptions for anything.  and that's also a big part of the problem.)  But after I lived with someone who's very picky I understand more about the importance of having a choice in providers.  Anyway, when the old lady was pregnant, we saw at least three obstetricians.  the first one was too whatever.  the second was too whatever.  I thought we'd run out of names in the phone book before we found one she liked.  Finally she liked the third one.  Actually I liked him as well.  (The first two were respectively an asian-american female and a russian-american female owing to the fact that she thought she'd feel more comfortable with a female.  She very quickly outgrew that theory when she decided she didn't like them but liked the third, a WASP-american male, very much.)  Anyway, we talked quite a bit.  He bitched and moaned about malpractice and the need for legislative action.  I rather enjoyed our conversations, I must admit.   Then, after the boy was born, we saw a number of pediatricians.  She's no less picky about pediatricians than she is about obsetricians.  We started with a younger white female, went on to a younger white male, and finally settled on a morbidly overweight, Jewish-raised but now Jehovah's Witness, Vegetarian guy who's probably about 60.  The boy likes him very much, and he seems to like the children.  My only problem with him is that he's way too much into drugs.  But he's experienced and seems more competent than the others we have visited.  He and I talk policy quite a bit as well.  He bitches about the same things as the other guy does.  So anyway, till a couple of years ago I knew very little about the whole thing.  I used to say, "We often hear that forty million americans are without insurance.  what we don't hear is how many of them like it that way.  I suspect quite a lot.  I know I'd rather keep my 75K per year in my pocket than give some of it up to make fat lawyers fatter and make fat doctors fatter.  If my insurance is free, I'll take it, though likely I'll never use it.  But even if it's a penny a month, I don't want it."  Nowadays I have a slightly different view, being a consumer of the services.  Well, not directly, but I have dependents who are consumers.  So now it's all about getting the best service I can.  I'll pay whatever they're asking, not just in premiums but in deductibles as well.  And I know the payments would be a lot less if the government was less involved.