Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HolidayInnExpress

Universal Health Care for Michigan?

Recommended Posts

I was attempting to brainstorm with my brother on a way that Michigan can be more competitive to attack Business and people or people and Business, which ever comes first. We concluded that Michigan needs to do something radical that no other state is doing...which is...UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

What is the benefits/cost of Michigan being the only State in the Union with Universal health care? Given that Health Care cost are killing many companies, would not companies be attracted to locating here if they did not have the health care cost burden? Of course, that burden would be shifted to tax payers of the state, but it would or should generate interest relocation interest of Businesses who would be more competitive due to lower or now health care burden.

I know that there are pros and cons...but Michigan needs to do something radical or its going to continue to hemorrhage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Interesting....it's definitely radical. But you're right, healthcare costs are one of the biggest concerns for business owners today. Would I take a job in Atlanta working for BellSouth with NO OR VERY LITTLE HEALTH BENEFITS (thinking 3 years from now) or would I take a job with SBC in Michigan with State-funded health benefits? How would it be funded, higher sales tax? And how would you sell the idea to the taxpayers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting....it's definitely radical. But you're right, healthcare costs are one of the biggest concerns for business owners today. Would I take a job in Atlanta working for BellSouth with NO OR VERY LITTLE HEALTH BENEFITS (thinking 3 years from now) or would I take a job with SBC in Michigan with State-funded health benefits? How would it be funded, higher sales tax? And how would you sell the idea to the taxpayers?

Well....those are all good questions...to get something...something must be given up....but the return on investment from corporate relocations should result in a net gain. If you can spur job growth, the population growth will create other opportunities in real estate and construction. The move would be a momentum builder....which Michigan needs desparately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple issues...

Doesn't Canada have universal health care? And isn't it really lousy compared to ours? I daresay that when something is in short or limited supply (e.g. health coverage), people will use it only as needed. But if its free, then people will use it for any old stupid thing (e.g. the sniffles), at the expense of people who have much more pressing maladies.

Also, if the problem is that increasing health care costs are killing businesses, will it really be any help to simply shift that cost to the citizens? If that was all that happened, then wouldn't our taxes just go up and up at the same rate as the cost increases? Yikes! I don't want that!

It seems like the root of the problem that we should be looking to fix is the out-of-control cost of health coverage and health care. It could be argued that shifting the cost burden to the citizens might get our lovely elected officials to get cracking on an effective solution, but that is another discussion.

BTW I'm not saying your idea sucks, just throwing some ideas out there ;):whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple issues...

Doesn't Canada have universal health care? And isn't it really lousy compared to ours? I daresay that when something is in short or limited supply (e.g. health coverage), people will use it only as needed. But if its free, then people will use it for any old stupid thing (e.g. the sniffles), at the expense of people who have much more pressing maladies.

Also, if the problem is that increasing health care costs are killing businesses, will it really be any help to simply shift that cost to the citizens? If that was all that happened, then wouldn't our taxes just go up and up at the same rate as the cost increases? Yikes! I don't want that!

It seems like the root of the problem that we should be looking to fix is the out-of-control cost of health coverage and health care. It could be argued that shifting the cost burden to the citizens might get our lovely elected officials to get cracking on an effective solution, but that is another discussion.

BTW I'm not saying your idea sucks, just throwing some ideas out there ;):whistling:

Well....I hear that argument against Universal Health Care all the time, the argument being that quality suffers. However, what I would ask you is what is your metrics to determine that quality suffers in the aggregate? Sure...it might suffer for some, while improve for others. Moreover, I may be mistaken but I think that Life expectancy in Canada is greater than it is in the USA. If the quality of their Health care was so terrible.....I would think that it would be reflected in the life expectancy statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada is a MUCH smaller country than the United States and their health care system is a mess. Health care is not the only factor in life expectancy.

Universal Healthcare is the last thing Michigan needs, higher taxes do not bring people into the state. Of what I know about Michigan history, in the 60s they had all this money flowing in due to a strong automotive industry, now it is not anywhere near that level. Cuts are in order, not massive government programs.

As for what Michigan can do to right itself, look to Minnesota. They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.

I would think that keeping Union workers would be more expensive than providing healthcare to the workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada is a MUCH smaller country than the United States and their health care system is a mess. Health care is not the only factor in life expectancy.

Universal Healthcare is the last thing Michigan needs, higher taxes do not bring people into the state. Of what I know about Michigan history, in the 60s they had all this money flowing in due to a strong automotive industry, now it is not anywhere near that level. Cuts are in order, not massive government programs.

What I am looking for from detractors is the DEMONSTRATION of the MESS. It

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to find articles on this subject because they can be very easily shot down as politically motivated.

I like this one http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/medi-j11.shtml

"The Vancouver-based Fraser Institute estimates that the average wait between general practitioner referral and specialty consultation is 16.5 weeks; the time between the latter and actual treatment is another 9.2 weeks. Delays for cancer patients run a month or two. The wait is almost seven months for eye care and eight months for orthopedic surgery."

Source: http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectiv...hcare/1yes.html

More Articles:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2001/january/resi...e_to_attack.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to find articles on this subject because they can be very easily shot down as politically motivated.

I like this one http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/medi-j11.shtml

Source: http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectiv...hcare/1yes.html

More Articles:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2001/january/resi...e_to_attack.php

Well...the question is does the wait COST LIVES? It seems to me that if the wait cost lives....then it would adversly affect life expectancy in Canda. Answer me this however.....whats the wait for these things if YOU HAVE NO INSURANCE!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been done before at the State level - TENNCARE was created about a decade ago in Tennessee. Predictably, it bankrupted itself (and nearly the State) within a decade. Adding this burden to the taxpayers of Michigan (already some of the highest taxed) will do nothing for business or job growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised Minnesota doesn't already have a state-funded health care system of some sort. It is a very left-leaning State. I would really like it if Michigan were a LEADER in ideas again, instead of looking to other States for ideas. I would bet if Michigan adopted State-run care, many other States would follow suit, and then Michigan would lose its advantage again, and be shouldered with rising healthcare costs.

An average longer life expectancy in Canada may be related to other things, like lower crime rates or less pollution, for instance. Or it could be culturally related such as dieting or exercising. Just some added thoughts (or fuel for the fire).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like lower crime rates

Be careful with this one, according to the UN Canada actually has more crime per capita than the US. Europol's numbers also indicate this, particularly in the sex crimes, assaut, and theft catagories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful with this one, according to the UN Canada actually has more crime per capita than the US. Europol's numbers also indicate this, particularly in the sex crimes, assaut, and theft catagories.

I said "may". I don't know even if any of these things are accurate, that's why I was posing the questions.

Maybe another angle to take would be to give State tax credits (deductions) toward healthcare expenses, similar to federal deductions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universal Health Care (UHC) programs also tend to focus more on prevention and not treatment.

I think this is why people feel that UHC isnt effective, because those who need treatment arent treated as quickly as they are here in the US. What is going to drive us to UHC is the insurance industry moving towards more preventative care and less treatment care. This is already happening, and its making a private healthcare system useless.

I can see a Hybrid system here in the US, where basic emergency care, physicians care, prescription drugs, etc. is covered by a UHC system, while a privatized system is used to cover the more exotic procedures like eye surgery, organ transplants, medical implants, etc. COmpanies will still pay for this privatized system, but the UHC portion would be funded by income taxes (reorganizing government spending would be a major priority)

Hospitals will run similar to the school systems, you will have your big public systems, and your smaller private systems. The Public systems will handle all the emergency care (Hospitals), Physicians (Personal offices), and prescription drugs will be paid for by the government similar to our current system (with co-pays) and the private systems will be covered by private insurance. It will also cost less because the small things arent covered by private insurance. Only exotic surgeries and treatments would be covered, and no government hinderance would stand in the way of treatment, the public physicians would still refer to private surgeries, who would then use their privately funded facilities to perform the surgeries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From personnal expeirence...... I lived in France for 6 months, while there I had to ge to the hospital for stitches. alas, I waited in a bed for 3 DAYS!!!, yes I saaid it THREE DAYS! because there were sooo many people ahead of me. The problem with our health care is the fact that our system is niether free to the people nor is it competitive, it is like a monopoly. This causes prices to sky rocket because there is no one to bring out similiar products or services at cheaper prices, which presumably, would have somewhat similiar qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notwithstanding the negatives I have heard, I am still very bullish on the concept for Michigan. Michigan cannot compete in the status quo mode of what is going on. It needs to take risk and the old axiom of the greater risk offering the greater rewards is true. The state needs to be ahead of the curve, if not the creator of the curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This causes prices to sky rocket because there is no one to bring out similiar products or services at cheaper prices, which presumably, would have somewhat similiar qualities.

Sorry, the greatest chunk of the cost issue belongs to tort law and insurance costs. Tort law has made it almost impossible for small clinics to operate - hence the move to large hospitals and consolidation of offices. All this is done to help make the cost of malpractice insurance bearable. It can cost a single doctor millions to get insured every year.

Not only does this kill competition but it greatly increases costs - they need to pass them down eventually. Furthermore, this effects the drug manufacturers who pay even higher costs when producing drugs. A normal drug must make two billion dollars during its seven year protected period in order to make a profit. TWO BILLION - more than half of that goes into the pockets of lawyers and insurance companies.

If we could ever work out a reasonable tort law reform policy, we could reduce prices by at least 33% and probably closer to 50%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.