Emac's Stock Watch | Fox Business
« The Fiscal Fed
What Ruth Madoff Didn't Say »

  • June 23, 2009 08:24 AM EDT by Elizabeth MacDonald

    Health-Care Myths

    The Obama administration is now attempting the biggest overhaul of healthcare since Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

    But the health care reform debate is riddled with misleading myths taken as fact, myths that are torquing the debate beyond recognition, from the U.S.'s supposedly poor infant mortality rates, who really gets medical care, the level of uninsureds, who really pays for insurance, who actually can afford insurance and wait times for surgeries.  

    Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage.

    But fixing the health system should be based on the facts, not on a statistical faith-based initiative mounted to ram through reform, where the data is either more nuanced on closer look or the statements made are simply not true.

    Worth keeping in mind, as the U.S. is already on track to compile total 10-year deficits that would surpass the annual GDP of Great Britain, Russia and Germany for one year-combined, and as the government is getting increasingly entangled in key industries, with higher taxes coming on incomes, on capital and on energy. Soliciting Lobbyists

    Meanwhile, the deficit spending figures do not include Medicare and Social Security costs, reforms which are so far on the backburner, they are off the stove. The following includes research from Fox News analyst James Farrell.

    Myth: "The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world."

    Talk about stretching a point until it snaps. This ranking is based on data mining.

    The U.S. ranks high on this list largely because this country numbers among those that actually measure neonatal deaths, notably in premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries that basically leave premature babies to die, notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey.

    Other statistical quirks push the U.S. unjustifiably higher in this ranking compared to other countries.

    The Center for Disease Control says the U.S. ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality rates, (according to the CDC), behind most other developed nations.

    The U.S. is supposedly worse than Singapore, Hong Kong, Greece, Northern Ireland, Cuba and Hungary. And the U.S. is supposedly on a par with Slovakia and Poland. CNN, the New York Times, numerous outlets across the country report the U.S. as abysmal in terms of infant mortality, without delving into what is behind this ranking.

    The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group, routinely flunks the U.S. health system using the infant mortality rate.

    "Infant mortality and our comparison with the rest of the world continue to be an embarrassment to the United States," Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization, has said.

    Start with the definition. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a country's infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.

    WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any signs of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one, single breath, or has one heartbeat. While the U.S. uses this definition, other countries don't and so don't count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.    

    The United States counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross (Healy noted this information in a column for U.S. News & World Report).

    And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries don't report.

    And what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.

    In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long, Healy notes. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.

    Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway's underweight infants that are not now counted, Healy says, quoting Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Moreover, the ranking doesn't take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.

    APTOPIX Obama WasteLikewise, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.'s 300 mn-plus citizens. 

    Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates.

    And the US has more mothers taking fertility treatments, which keeps the rate of pregnancy high due to multiple-birth pregnancies.

    Again, the U.S. counts all of these infants as births. Moreover, we're not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies that die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations.

    Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, cautions against using comparisons country-by-country.

    "Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or not)," the OECD says.

    "In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births." (Note: Emphasis EMac's).

    The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks' gestation and 7 days after birth. According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th-and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique, Hong Kong, and San Marino.

    Myth: "About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance."

    There is a difference between health care and health insurance, as Fox Business anchor Brian Sullivan points out after researching reports on health care from the Congressional Budget Office, Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Georgetown University.

    Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports.

    About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says.

    A whopping 70% of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both programs, a 2008 study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute shows.

    Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance, Sullivan reports.

    And of those 46 mn without insurance, an estimated 10 mn or so are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible, according to statistics from the Census Bureau), Sullivan reports.

    Myth: "The uninsured can't afford to buy coverage."

    Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year, says Sally Pipes, author of the book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, a book that attempts to dig behind the numbers. According to author Pipes, 38% of the U.S. uninsured population earns more than $50,000 per year.

    That means 38% of the uninsured likely make enough to afford health insurance, but for undetermined reasons choose not to buy it.

    Myth: "Most of the uninsured do not have health insurance because they are not working and so don't have access to health benefits through an employer."

    Not so fast--the data is more nuanced and revealing upon closer look. baucus

    According to the CBO, about half of the uninsured in 2009 fall into one of the following three categories. Some people will be in more than one of those categories at the same time:

    *Nearly one out of three, 30%, will be offered, but will decline, coverage from an employer.

    *Nearly one out of five, 18%, will be eligible for, but not enrolled in Medicaid; and

    *More than one out of seven, 17%, will have family income above 300% of the poverty level (about $65,000 for a family of four);

    What is potentially the real number for the poor uninsured? According to a 2003 Blue Cross study, 8.2 mn Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care, but earn too much to qualify for government assistance.

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "The estimated 45 mn people without health insurance lacked health insurance for every day of the year."

    The CBO's 45 mn estimate reflects individuals "without health insurance at any given time during 2009."

    But that does not mean that all 45 mn people spend every day of 2009 without insurance. It is a point estimate - on any particular day, there will be 45 mn individuals without health insurance. 

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies."

    The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

    "Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers' payments for their workers' insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged," the CBO says. "Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers."

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "The cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured significantly increases hospital costs."

    Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid.

    And the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is "unlikely to have a substantial effect on private payment rates," the CBO says, adding that shifting costs from uninsured to private insurance premiums is "likely to be relatively small."

    [source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times."

    Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.

    In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.

    Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%). 

    [Source: Commonwealth Fund, "MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE," by Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Michelle M. Doty, Alyssa L. Holmgren, Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea, May 2007, http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/May/Mirror%20%20Mirror%20on%20the%20Wall%20%20An%20International%20Update%20on%20the%20Comparative%20Performance%20of%20American%20Healt/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final%20pdf.pdf]

    Myth: "Insurers cover less today than they did in the past."

    No they're covering more costs. According to the CBO, consumers paid for 33 % of their total, personal health care expenditures in 1975. But by 2000, consumers' personal share had fallen to 17%, and it declined to 15% in 2006. 

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

RSS Subscribe to Comments

TBarton

Elizabeth, Thanks for another fine piece of research. I always feel so much better informed after reading your articles.

June 25, 2009 at 10:46 am

Carla, Ballwin, MO

Health care always stirs a lot of emotion, the number of smart and impassioned responses is testament to that. Who wouldn't spend their last cent on saving their premature baby, or spouse or child with a terminal illness. Your mother, sister, grandmother, or beautiful best friend with breast cancer...we've all been there. A devastating car accident which cripples the victim, requiring months of rehabilitation. An elderly person with Alzheimer's, the care can deplete a wealthy family's fortune in no time. We've all been touched by life's unexpected heartbreaks. I hope the government and private sector can come up with a well thought out plan, which is agreeable to all sides of the debate.

June 25, 2009 at 10:05 am

Nancy Welch

I agreed completely with Sharden, until we stop dishing out FREE health care to those who do not pay taxes and get free health care and free housing and free food and stop sending all of our jobs out of this country we are going to continue to go down the recession track in this country. The only thing that is really free is salvation and that's because the price has already been paid. WE give all this free living to people who are able to work and our elderly who worked blood sweat and tears for this country are the ones that live without their medicine and cool air and food to eat. It really burns me up to see them struggle to have a little something and then when they get sick and have to be cared for they have to give everything to the state but, we will give free housing, free food, $1 prescriptions to people who can get off their lazy tails and work but, we don't do it. I am not just talking about illegals I am talking about Americans. We let people come in to this country and pay no taxes, whose bright idea was that. Like I don't know. I believe in the land of the free but, I get up everyday and go to work and give 150% to my employer and i don't expect not to pay taxes or not to have to pay for food or my medicine. Our elderly should be some of the wealthest around but we have forgotten them instead we give it to the undeserving. SOMEBODY WAKE UP IN WASHINGTON PLEASE. Someone commented that Washington does not lieve like we do I say Amen to that.

June 24, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Ira

"Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care." Did the study factor in uninsured or underinsured people? I need to see a specialist, but my insurance won't cover it and I can't afford to pay it out of my pocket, so my waiting time is until I can afford it - probably four or five months at least. If I was still living in Canada, I'm sure I could get treatment within a week.

June 24, 2009 at 5:06 pm

John L

How about this myth: providing healthcare is an obligation. If I were sick and didn't have the money to pay for care it would be wrong for me to go to my neighbor and at gun point require him to pay for my care. It is equally wrong to to ask my government to do so for me. Healthcare is my right, but no one other than me (or my insurance company through contractual agreement) is obligated to pay for it.

June 24, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Lee

The only ones who want womb to tomb government healthcare are socialists who are too lazy to get private health insurance. They will buy insurance for the car they don't need or house insurance for a house too big for them. Then they cry they cannot afford simple health insurance. As a Canadian with horrible healthcare service, I see and hear it all the time.

June 24, 2009 at 12:59 pm

J.Irwin

As a practicing physician for 32 years, I know these things to be true. I am no fan of traditional insurance but insurance is not the problem. The real problems are: 1. end of life, unrealistic care estimated to be 30% of one's lifetime health care expenditures. Stop it! Health care is much cheaper in countries where people die young! 2. Medical liability. The tort system that makes plaintiff attorneys like John Edwards multimillionaires. Cap pain and suffering awards at $250,000 and watch this disappear. This directly results in unnessary tests and procedures--and costs. "no-fault" malpractice insurance. Stop the med-mal lottery winners. Of course, this will never happen with a Dem. congress and President. 3. the "worried well". Neurotic illnesses cost millions and millions. High deductibles really stop much of this. 4. Although a tough sell, we need to ration care in a realistic way. Does an 85 y/o in the nursing home really need both knees replaced? 5. Transparency in costs. The consumer needs to know how much an episode of care is going to cost so that he/she can make a rational decision about whether to proceed or not. High deductibles and cost transparency will force the consumer to choose rationally when they can compare costs and the knowledge that much of the cost will be out of pocket. Market forces will drive down costs. Finally, the idea that computerizing medical records will save money is so absurd it is laughable.

June 24, 2009 at 10:35 am

Peter A

Typically Fox. 46 mn do not have health care insurance. That's a fact which even the article above does not dispute - it just mucks it up enough so that people come away thinking that it is not true. Infant mortality: instead of ranking 29th the US ranks only 16th. Wow. The crux of the matter is that the US system is far more expensive than any other health system in the world. Per capita healthcare spending: US $6714, Germany $3669, Japan $2690 (source: WHO). But in virtually all health indicators (longevity, infant mortality, etc.), the US ranks at the dismal bottom of developed countries.

June 24, 2009 at 4:19 am

PatriotMan

WoooW! So we do have the best healthcare in the world. Everyone is lying and only we know what is right. All the statistics by UN, our own department of CDC, World Health Organization, are all lies, lies. Yes, we live in a utopia. We have low infant mortality, we don't have uninsured people (they just don't want to buy insurance), they are just exercising their choice. Everything bad about our healthcare is a fabrication by enemies; enemies outside of US and enemies within...... We also have the best car in the world. We have no credit crisis - there was never a financial meltdown. The foreclosures, they are lies spread by Communists and Democrats and Liberal.....

June 24, 2009 at 2:49 am

Bodo

I don't agree with the third paragraph of your article.

June 23, 2009 at 10:21 pm

F. Erwin

The cost or price of a product and how it is paid for are two separate issues. Insurance is how we pay for health care and it works by applying the concept of risk pooling. What is lacking most in our current system is a fair and equitable way for people to access a reasonable level of insurance that provides ongoing continuous protection from a potential financial catastrophe. While the problems with controlling costs/prices are quite complex, providing for access to insurance is not. There are really only two things that need to happen. First, there must be some form of community rating where insurance rates are established based on basic demographic information and not health condition. Not only should pre-existing conditions be covered, but rating with any information on health status at all should be forbidden. Second, there can be no exemptions from participation. None. If there is universal access there must be universal participation. What is most wrong with our current system is that the very people who have paid the most into the system – middle aged working Americans – are very ones who are most at risk for unavailable or unaffordable health insurance coverage. Just as we need to separate cost from payment, we need to separate the cost of providing healthcare services from the price that is charged for these services and the amount we choose to buy.

June 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Sharden

All facts, I work in the industry and have been a student for the past 5 years ... i would scream during the campaign and today when I see a commercial depicting "47 million uninsured" - I even emailed the AMA when they aired a commercial with the same false facts! Costs are high and will continue to be - for a number of reasons, technology and MORE people using MORE services MORE of the time - it's a fact. Dont let Obama fool you with this "prevention" stuff, we have been trying that for years and the results are in - costs have still risen! Until we close the borders and get immigration under control, the costs will rise. We need tax reform, not government reform

June 23, 2009 at 7:29 pm
(2 Replies)

Carla, Ballwin,MO

It's probably going to happen, the Dems have the numbers in the Congress and Senate. I think a few Repubs will vote for it! Even if you are well insured, there are a lot of out of pocket expenses. Insurance - can't live with it - can't afford not to have it!!!

June 23, 2009 at 6:32 pm

Frank Collatt

You cannot believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the President of the United States of AMERICA, Barack Hussein Obama, or anything that the Left-Wing Democrats say either, because of their 'ram it down your throat' socialistic and fascist agenda. They are using Health Care Reform, in one manner or another, to further enslave the American People into their control grid, which if passed, will ruin Health Care primarily for millions of aging Senior Americans. This ploy by the OBAMA Administration is a "ruse", and an attempt to utilize fear-mongering to rally support for a program that no-one is sure they can pay for, much less even if ever benefit from. Members of Congress should be ashamed of theirselves for running and legislating such a sham on the American People; do they think we are all stupid, like they are in inventing this SCAM? To prove my point, What has the Government of and for the American People done thus far with Medicare? Medicaid? and how about Social Security? It is easy to draw a conclusion, and see where their interests lie--in dominance, and control, much like the Car Companies and Banking Industry.

June 23, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Ed K

I watch with interest the debate on health care. I do however think the conversation needs to be turned on it's end. Every conversation is framed in "How do we pay for health care", "Costs continue to rise for some by 100%". The REAL question should be WHY is health care so expensive! If health care was left to the same market forces as every other business, costs would HAVE to come down. Until we understand why the costs are the way they are we can do NOTHING to control or save for those costs.

June 23, 2009 at 5:34 pm

A. Ray Thomas

Interesting facts. Based on all this information, the infant mortality rate should be dropped from further comparisons by both sides. Frankly, I think all comparisons to plans outside the USA should be dropped. There are so many factors that go into comparing quality of life and health care in each country that it is impossible to keep discussions rational on the subject. Besides, that is NOT the issue. The real issue is the cost of healthcare here in the USA and what alternatives can be put in place. We observed Medicare first hand over eight years of caring for my mother-in-law. The constant back-and-forth between Medicare and the providers is bureacracy at its worst. The lovely woman has been dead for 10 months and we are still getting paperwork as Medicare finally pays the hospital and doctors. The paperwork alone must cost a fortune. I was in employer paid systems for decades and for all their flaws, and there are many, I never saw problems like this. Now I'm one of the millions of boomers who is self employed and not eligible for Medicare. My wife and I are 61 and our BlueCross premiums are $1329/mo - that's $16,000 per year. Next month, it jumps to nearly $19,000 or we can pay an enormous deductible and it will only increase by $600. Real numbers. We have a problem in THIS country. Maybe if our legislators were on the same healthcare that the rest of us have to live with they would see the problem. They can't. They are spoiled rotten -- on OUR money!!!

June 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Brian

Ok, nice piece. Now what's the solution? "Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage" is the quote. I agree, but someone who is so smart to point out health-care myths surely could include their suggestions to resolve the problem. That's all I hear from Republicans. "Oh, we don't want to socialize medical care because that's baaaad, and Marxist, and quality of care will suffer, and taxes will go up, and we'll all start wearing Che Guevara tee-shirts and quoting the Communist Manifesto" What are their ideas?? Because I hear nothing but this type of criticism. By the way; I have relatives in Canada and the UK and the negative impact to their lives of a government sponsored healthcare system is miniscule compared to what we have today in the US. It is outrageous that we treat this topic as a privilege rather than a right in the most powerful country on earth.

June 23, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Matt

This arti.cle slants the numbers just as badly as the articles and arguments its claiming to refute. A.nd I love it when articles here cite the Ameri.can Enterprise Institute, which is a hard right think tank .that has as biased a moti.ve as any. That's like citing Aco.rn for voti.ng statistics. The section on uncompensated care doesnt even answer the my.th. And the first sect.ion essentially gi.ves a bunch of excuses, withotu acknowledg.ing that in fact the US'd infant mortality rate (especially in the inn.er cities) is in f.act really high even if the nu.mbers should be qu.alified a bit. Plus, it completely ignores the issue of "pre-exist.ing con.ditions" and that some people who can afford and want insurance just cant get it.

June 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm

!MyWallet

All, I must say that this is an interesting debate...but I think that the fundamental questions are being avoided. Here are a few: -What RIGHT do any of us have to health care? -Why should I pay for the failure of others to provide for themselves or their families? -Why should the government be able to take from me, against my will, to give to others? -In what section of the Constitution does it state that I have to work to pay for those that cannot provide for themselves? -Is the demand for your hard earned success and well-being making you -- Donate less -- Care less about those in times of trouble -- Resent the beneficiaries of these types of programs -- Seriously question the moral and ethical goals of those pushing these programs -- Believe that those trying to pass this type of legislation have a personal financial interest in the outcome? As an employer, I could not in good conscience hire anyone who would opt into these types of programs. They are clearly weak in morals, ethics, and in my opinion would have a high propensity to steal. These social programs not only cost us in terms of dollars, but more significantly in trust. I'm all for everyone having access to healthcare, but shouldn't this be determined at a community or regional level? If I see where my money is going and have the opportunity not to pay in if I feel the program is abused, I, like many others would be more willing to give a try.

June 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm

Matt

This article slants the numbers just as badly as the articles and arguments its claiming to refute. And I love it when articles here cite the American Enterprise Institute, which is a hard right think tank that has as biased a motive as any. That's like citing Acorn for voting statistics. The section on uncompensated care doesnt even answer the myth. And the first section essentially gives a bunch of excuses, withotu acknowledging that in fact the US'd infant mortality rate (especially in the inner cities) is in fact really high even if the numbers should be qualified a bit. Plus, it completely ignores the issue of "pre-existing conditions" and that some people who can afford and want insurance just cant get any.

June 23, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Matt

This article slants the numbers just as badly as the articles and arguments its claiming to refute. And I love it when articles here cite the American Enterprise Institute, which is a hard right think tank that has as biased a motive as any. That's like citing Acorn for voting statistics. The section on uncompensated care doesnt even answer the myth. And the first section essentially gives a bunch of excuses, withotu acknowledging that in fact the US'd infant mortality rate (especially in the inner cities) is in fact really high even if the numbers should be qualified a bit. Plus, it completely ignores the issue of "pre-existing conditions" and that some people who can afford and want insurance just cant get it

June 23, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Rich

You left out the biggest myth being used - insurance companies work on 30% administrative costs and thats how all this will be paid for. Numerous studies by non insurance companies show admin costs at the 10% level after paying state premium taxes. That number includes rent, utilties, claims processing, debt service, fraud prevention, salaries, etc. The much publicized number that you hear about Medicare admin of 2.7% is the cost of processing claims. All the other normal businesss expenses are assigned to otyer budgets.

June 23, 2009 at 5:18 pm

earle

Thanks for all your research,E'Mac

June 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Jim

Wow......most of you kool aid guzzling left wingers completely miss the point. Nobody, including the author of this piece, is saying health care isn't in need of a major overhaul....it is. To quote Ms. MacDonald, "Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage". However, it is not near as bad as some in the democratic party would have us believe. It is time the current administration began a serious discussion of the issues instead of claiming the sky is falling so they can initiate the demise of private health insurance and the rise of socialized medicine. By the way, lots of Canadians come here for health care.

June 23, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Bob

The facts pointed out in this article are right on, but nothing has been mentioned about what Government managed health care will cost in human suffering beyond those who few who are factually uninsured. I have had several friends who died because of treatment they needed while under Government managed health care. Because of their age, between 75-78, the treatment was not considered to be cost effective so they were told they will die. There are many horror stories associated with Government managed health care, but the truth will never be known since the liberal media will not tell the truth. Thanks FOX for you honest approach!

June 23, 2009 at 5:11 pm

about this blog

  • Elizabeth MacDonald is the stocks editor for Fox Business Network. She is recognized as one of the top prize-winning business journalists in the country, and has received 14 awards, including the top prize in business journalism, the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business Journalism, and the Newswomen's Club of New York Front Page Award for Excellence in Investigative Journalism.

browse posts

most popular posts