Centerfield

Family health coverage now costs an average $11,480 annually

That's just the insurance premiums! That does NOT include what said family shells out in deductibles before any coverage actually kicks in, or their co-pays, or any "pre-tax" medical plan funding, or any uncovered health care such as dental or vision.

Real median family income in the US in 2005 was around $46,500. Insurance premiums alone, without counting those deductibles and co-pays and uncovered services, etc., comes to about 25% of median family income.

Posted by: Tully at October 12, 2006 10:56 AM

And so far, the only politician who's even tried to provide a fix is Hillary and she got thoroughly shot down, no doubt thanks to the insurance industry.

What I find interesting is that so many Americans tout the Canadian model as the way to go, but if you were to ask the average Canadian (especially in the Maritimes) what they think, they'd tell you the Canadian model is terrible.

Posted by: Heather at October 12, 2006 11:45 AM

I was just at an event where the head of the biggest local hopital system (Seton) was present. He said he was looking to expand a LOT - 1000 positions in the near future. There's clearly alot of money there!

One thing that bugs me alot is how integrated the health-care industry is. There are just two hospital providers here in Austin. Just one non-hospital-related clinic chain, and it's so bad I go to a nearby urgent care clinic instead. For medical research here in Texas, there's UT and Baylor.

It takes too much money to be a small organization , clinic, or company involved in medicine. Medical supplies might be the only exception.

Posted by: Jon Kay at October 12, 2006 12:32 PM

IMHO any healthcare reform must first answer these two basic questions:
1)How will it reduce costs?
2) How will it increase resources into the system?

Without one or both, the system, no matter how good it is, will grind to a halt!

Posted by: c3 at October 12, 2006 03:32 PM

Tully;

That's just the insurance premiums! That does NOT include what said family shells out in deductibles before any coverage actually kicks in, or their co-pays, or any "pre-tax" medical plan funding, or any uncovered health care such as dental or vision.

And Health Spending Accounts (HSA's) and their derivatives dramatically increase those co-pays and/or deductables.

That's why I contend the Republican push for HSA's is not a solution but just alternative problem.

Posted by: c3 at October 12, 2006 03:36 PM

This is why I think Ahnold's veto of the Democrat plan to set up an alternative to the private insurance agencies was a mistake. Again, while both pvt and govt systmes would have similar costs in terms of delivering service the govt doesn't have to deal with top heavy C-level pay or trying to meet unrealistic wall st. expectations.
There are also other advantages. California would have been able to have a lot more leverage in getting lower pharma prices; having more people insured means fewer people using the emergency rooms or services for what would normally be routine healthcare incidents; the benefits to the California economy from lower health care costs would be considerable a few years after implementation.

Posted by: Marcus at October 13, 2006 07:01 PM

what about vermont? are there any other states whose programs work well?
health care is just one of those things where "things are rough all over" fit the bill. No one likes their health care, but they cannot bear the idea of change. State run health care *will* mean wait times (if I'm wrong, I'm sooo glad to be wrong). Americans get impatient waiting for a cheeseburger to get cooked. Can you imagine what it would be like that when we have to wait six months for a hip replacement?

Posted by: Rachel at October 14, 2006 08:39 AM

Rachel, I know a few people who have had to deal with "socialized" medicine. My aunt who's lived in Italy since the 60's and a old HS classmate of mine near Vancouver B.C. who has Parkinson's. In both cases the waits were reasonable for healthcare. Neither of them are consumed with worry that they will lose their house over catastrophic medical bills. The one in Canada, has had several brain operations that have been recommended to reduce the symptoms of Parkinsons' that is, allow more coordinated movement. For most middle class families alone that kind of expense would be onerouus. I will also note that 20+ years ago we sent my late grandmother over to Italy where she had a foot operation so that she could get around better. No muss, no fuss.
I'm not ingnorant of the shortcomings of government run healthcare, nevertheless I don't have any problem with the government becoming a competing health provider as was proposed in California.

Posted by: Marcus at October 16, 2006 03:03 AM