You can damn well bet if I had to pay the $150, I would be screaming bloody murder. There is simply no way they can justify that, other than my insurance is willing to pay a set amount for an annual 'physical' and, as an accepted member of my insurance, they bill that amount.

I could go to another clinic that would charge $65 for the same physical, not accepted by my insurance, but it would be all out of pocket -- so why would I pay the additional $45 for simply filling out a form?

The disconnect between the consumer and the payer is, in my opinion, a major problem with the current system.

You should do a google search on Canadian medical treatment wait times.

The vaunted universal health care system you desire consistently treats patients worse and makes them wait longer for critical diagnositc tests and treatment then the US system does.

Your faith that the government could do things cheaper and better is touching. It also indicates you have never had first hand experience with how government programs actually work once implemented.

Um, you forgot a third option:

3. Invade other countries and take their resources

The U.S. has a huge military advantage over anyone else, and, historically, this has been a way for contries to deal with all sorts of scarce resources from everything from land to women.

Yeah, unlikely, but certainly an option.

My husband is a disabled veteran and has used the or tried to use the VA system since the mid 90's.

VA care in Durham was excellent. He had a great doctor, and any needs he had were met well, and in a timely manner.

Since moving to NH I can't say anything nice about the VA system up here. It takes months just to get an appointment outside of their ER system. They work on very limited hours.

And he can't get any of the medications he needs through the VA, because the VA doesn't carry them.

I am just not overly impressed with the system. Overall, in the big picture it may do a fine job of meeting the needs of veterans, but there are some huge gaps in the service, and if you are living in one of those gap areas, you realize it isn't the wonderful system it is painted.

Not to mention I they seem to have issues with protecting veterans information.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/jan07/07-01-17.html

I’m not sure if you were asking me about the VA or medicare but I would guess the reason they are efficient in providing care is that they provide minimal care compared to the rest of the system that goes hog wild with preventative medicine.

Actually, no. You might want to take a look at this to learn what the VA's doing right. It includes prudent use of technology in streamlining procedures, economies of scale, and longterm relationships with its customers.

I agree boomers didn't create the problem but I still see the self centered nature of them as contributing to the growth of the programs without the revenue growth to accompany it. It's a minor point and petty on my part but following the boomer generation is like following a continuous societal train wreck.

Ken,

I know many workers, heck I'm a worker. Privatization, like I pointed out, is going on right now through IRA's and 401k's which my generation is counting on more and more. Increasing that private share would help us. I thought it was the politicians that didn't like it.

I'm not sure if you were asking me about the VA or medicare but I would guess the reason they are efficient in providing care is that they provide minimal care compared to the rest of the system that goes hog wild with preventative medicine.

I appreciate both of your comments.

Not really. Real estate is finite. But we can always increase the supply of doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc.

Not so's you'd notice. The number of doctors graduated from U. S. medical schools every year hasn't changed in a generation.

That's where I differ from Steve: only government can affect that. Docs won't do it on their own.

If it is higher than average, then the potential for a problem is more realistic, if it is lower than average, then we have been here, done that before and you need to show what is unique about this situation.

Also remember, these programs were put in place by legislation and they can be removed by legislation. Right now the political cost is high because those hurt most are on the receiving end and our skewed tax system puts half the tax burden on the top 5%. And those who gain are spread across the voters. Balancing the pain (Steve's preference would be higher taxes, mine would be budget reductions and legislation reform) is going to happen as the pain gets distributed.

Steve Plunk, you apparently don’t know many real workers. Social Security privatization was tried by Bush and was overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people and went exactly as far as it deserved to go - nowhere.

You can forget privatizing the most successful and popular government program of all time. It will never happen. Beside, their is no problem with SS.

Its so successful the return on the amount taken out of my paycheck is way higher than same amount of money over put in 401(k) and IRAs for the long term rate of return.

Resources, medical resources, are finite.

Not really. Real estate is finite. But we can always increase the supply of doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc.

What is finite is the *demand* for medical resources.

Once you fill the need for a heart bypass surgery you are not going to buy another one no matter how good a deal the doctor may give you. This is not like buying towels at the department store. You may another set of towels, even without need, just because they are on sale.

Medical care is not subject to market forces.

Despite your ignorance Steve shopping for medical care is not at all like shopping for towels.

Do you really think that medical care is a free market kind of thing subject to the same market incentives as department store shopping?

Yes. I know you think it is some sort of right, but I'm just not seeing it. Resources, medical resources, are finite. We simply cannot guarantee that everybody can have everything they want. Your only alternative is to have the government tell you what you can have vs. the market.

I seem to remember a similar argument being advanced in the 80’s. That Reagan’s budgets were imposing a future tax burden that would have us all eating grass in 20 years.

Yes, and we see something similar today. The current deficit is declining, but the entitlement programs are not being addressed as they were in Reagan's day. If the same solution is used it will mean a very, very large tax hike. Funny how nobody seems to recall that tax increase under Reagan.

Um, yea. And GHWB ate his words regarding taxes to compensate. Clinton did so again - to the tune of wailing and gnashing of teeth by the conservative doomsayers saying we’d all be eating grass within 4 years because it’d kill the economy.

Of course, we had the longest sustained economic boom in history right after.

Right. Those tax increases did not kill the economy. It might have slowed things down for a bit (e.g. GHWB), but the second tax increase was particularly well timed, right when the expansion was taking off. Not that I credit Clinton or his Administration with this fortuitous timing.

Dave,

My point is threefold: healthcare costs are high because of government involvement, healthcare segment salaries are high because of government involvement, and creatures of the government have no business complaining when the government bites back.

Let me see...government, government, government and even more govenrment. Yet ken tells me we need...more government. Hmmm, I think I'll just take the pony and go home.

Ken,

Where is that pony again?

Um, yea. And GHWB ate his words regarding taxes to compensate. Clinton did so again - to the tune of wailing and gnashing of teeth by the conservative doomsayers saying we'd all be eating grass within 4 years because it'd kill the economy.

Of course, we had the longest sustained economic boom in history right after.