Full Version: Universal Health Care
Cyan's Casual Conversation thread on whether we have health insurance got me thinking about the idea of Universal Health Care in the US.
Nighttimer made the following remarks:
Julian said:
Mrs. P said:
Bush's inaction on this issue for the last four years is one of my primary reasons to oppose his reelection. I couldn't disagree more with you Dontreadonme.
The American people deserve healthcare coverage just as good as our leaders in Congress receive.
We would go bankrupt if we transitioned to universal health care and didn’t adopt the no-fault style policies of Europe with them, and I would certainly not look to Kerry to change any of this. The primary spokesperson on behalf of the trial lawyers is the "Center for Justice and Democracy”, heavily funded by the trial bar, whose president is Joanne Doroshow (a Naderite), and was started with seed money by Michael Moore, who is on the board. Which candidate do you think this group endorses? And Edwards his running mate? Some of Edwards's biggest wins came from cases suing doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies for medical malpractice.
There might be a lot of talk and “feel your pain” sentiments during the next four years if Kerry becomes president, maybe even a team of 500 lawyers paid to analyze the possibilities (sound familiar?), but nothing will truly be done to cover American healthcare, and no measures toward tort reform (the root of the problem), will be made.
Questions for debate:
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
Nighttimer made the following remarks:
QUOTE
To my mind the right to health and healthcare is a fundamental and basic human right. The fact that 44 million Americans are without healthcare is a national shame and scandal.
http://covertheuninsuredweek.org/media/doc...ease050504.php3
http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/fq...htm#thatserious
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html
Bush's inaction on this issue for the last four years is one of my primary reasons to oppose his reelection. I couldn't disagree more with you Dontreadonme.
The American people deserve healthcare coverage just as good as our leaders in Congress receive.
For anyone who thinks national healtcare is too risky to implement I hope you always have insurance if your child wakes up at 2:00 a.m. with a temperature over 100 degrees and all you have in the house is a half-empty bottle of Robitussen.
http://covertheuninsuredweek.org/media/doc...ease050504.php3
http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/fq...htm#thatserious
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html
Bush's inaction on this issue for the last four years is one of my primary reasons to oppose his reelection. I couldn't disagree more with you Dontreadonme.
The American people deserve healthcare coverage just as good as our leaders in Congress receive.
For anyone who thinks national healtcare is too risky to implement I hope you always have insurance if your child wakes up at 2:00 a.m. with a temperature over 100 degrees and all you have in the house is a half-empty bottle of Robitussen.
Julian said:
QUOTE
I checked "other", since I live in Britain so I am covered by the National Health Service. I pay for it out of my taxes, but it is free at the point of delivery.
The constraint on resources means that sometimes I might need to wait a while for an appointment - perhaps a day or two to see my GP, or an hour or two if I visit a hospital ER without a real emergency. For elective surgery I might need to wait up to six months depending on where I live and what condition I have (This used to be potentially much longer, but the current government has tried hard to cut waiting times. Sometimes the emphasis has been too much on this and not enough on quality of care, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule.)
I'd guess that over 90% of patients have a completely satisfactory experience, which most likely compares favourably with the private US system. And all this happens on a rather smaller percentage of GDP invested in healthcare than the USA.
The constraint on resources means that sometimes I might need to wait a while for an appointment - perhaps a day or two to see my GP, or an hour or two if I visit a hospital ER without a real emergency. For elective surgery I might need to wait up to six months depending on where I live and what condition I have (This used to be potentially much longer, but the current government has tried hard to cut waiting times. Sometimes the emphasis has been too much on this and not enough on quality of care, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule.)
I'd guess that over 90% of patients have a completely satisfactory experience, which most likely compares favourably with the private US system. And all this happens on a rather smaller percentage of GDP invested in healthcare than the USA.
Mrs. P said:
QUOTE
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 26 2004, 07:38 PM)
Bush's inaction on this issue for the last four years is one of my primary reasons to oppose his reelection. I couldn't disagree more with you Dontreadonme.
The American people deserve healthcare coverage just as good as our leaders in Congress receive.
We would go bankrupt if we transitioned to universal health care and didn’t adopt the no-fault style policies of Europe with them, and I would certainly not look to Kerry to change any of this. The primary spokesperson on behalf of the trial lawyers is the "Center for Justice and Democracy”, heavily funded by the trial bar, whose president is Joanne Doroshow (a Naderite), and was started with seed money by Michael Moore, who is on the board. Which candidate do you think this group endorses? And Edwards his running mate? Some of Edwards's biggest wins came from cases suing doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies for medical malpractice.
There might be a lot of talk and “feel your pain” sentiments during the next four years if Kerry becomes president, maybe even a team of 500 lawyers paid to analyze the possibilities (sound familiar?), but nothing will truly be done to cover American healthcare, and no measures toward tort reform (the root of the problem), will be made.
Questions for debate:
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
Yes, that is one of the large government programs I would like to see implemented, along with some significant reform of the industry.
There are over 43 million Americans who lack health insurance (and some estimates put that number as high as 85 million) - source
I belive that access to Health Care is a basic human right, and it is really sad that so many Americans cannot afford healthcare. The United States is the only industrialized country without some form of universal healthcare.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
I'll answer two and three together.
It is a very realistic goal, and we have several countries we could look to as a model such as Canada and several European countries.
From The American Medical Student Association
Finally and probably most importantly:
This group, Working People.org, has some good ideas on how it might be implmemented, and actually universal health care has been tossed around since the 1950s, but it has never been implemented.
Yes, that is one of the large government programs I would like to see implemented, along with some significant reform of the industry.
There are over 43 million Americans who lack health insurance (and some estimates put that number as high as 85 million) - source
I belive that access to Health Care is a basic human right, and it is really sad that so many Americans cannot afford healthcare. The United States is the only industrialized country without some form of universal healthcare.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
I'll answer two and three together.
It is a very realistic goal, and we have several countries we could look to as a model such as Canada and several European countries.
From The American Medical Student Association
QUOTE
MYTH: It would cost too much money.
FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.
The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.
MYTH: It is socialized medicine.
FACT: A single-payer universal health plan is not socialized medicine. Under socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and clinics. Doctors and nurses are government employees. A single-payer universal health plan preserves private ownership and employment. It has no more in common with socialized medicine than does Medicare. What's unique about a single-payer universal health plan is that all health-care risks are placed in a universal risk pool covering everyone.
MYTH: Americans would pay more.
FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.
MYTH: The United States has the best health care in the world.
FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.
FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.
The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.
MYTH: It is socialized medicine.
FACT: A single-payer universal health plan is not socialized medicine. Under socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and clinics. Doctors and nurses are government employees. A single-payer universal health plan preserves private ownership and employment. It has no more in common with socialized medicine than does Medicare. What's unique about a single-payer universal health plan is that all health-care risks are placed in a universal risk pool covering everyone.
MYTH: Americans would pay more.
FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.
MYTH: The United States has the best health care in the world.
FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.
Finally and probably most importantly:
QUOTE
MYTH: U.S. physicians don't want a single-payer universal health plan.
FACT: Despite pervasive negative spin, 57.1 percent of U.S. physicians believe a single-payer system with universal coverage would be the best option for the United States, according to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine survey.
FACT: Despite pervasive negative spin, 57.1 percent of U.S. physicians believe a single-payer system with universal coverage would be the best option for the United States, according to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine survey.
This group, Working People.org, has some good ideas on how it might be implmemented, and actually universal health care has been tossed around since the 1950s, but it has never been implemented.
QUOTE
But denial of service by HMOs is really just a small part of the overall problem. When an individual lacks health insurance, the consequences are often severe.
One of the great myths in healthcare is that, whether covered or not, Americans have access to care when it is really needed. In a recent study focusing on working-age adults, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, chartered by Congress, concluded that "working-age Americans without health insurance are more likely to:
* Receive too little medical care and receive it too late;
* Be sicker and die sooner;
* Receive poorer care when they are in the hospital even for acute situations like a motor vehicle crash."
The Institute used 130 related research studies to conclude that:
"The health and length of life of working-age Americans would improve if they obtained coverage. Like those who are now insured, the newly insured would use preventive services more often and would be less likely to delay seeking care, thus making early detection and treatment of problems more feasible. The best health outcomes are possible only if the uninsured obtain coverage before the onset of any illness or injury. People without health insurance often go without appropriate care.
One of the great myths in healthcare is that, whether covered or not, Americans have access to care when it is really needed. In a recent study focusing on working-age adults, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, chartered by Congress, concluded that "working-age Americans without health insurance are more likely to:
* Receive too little medical care and receive it too late;
* Be sicker and die sooner;
* Receive poorer care when they are in the hospital even for acute situations like a motor vehicle crash."
The Institute used 130 related research studies to conclude that:
"The health and length of life of working-age Americans would improve if they obtained coverage. Like those who are now insured, the newly insured would use preventive services more often and would be less likely to delay seeking care, thus making early detection and treatment of problems more feasible. The best health outcomes are possible only if the uninsured obtain coverage before the onset of any illness or injury. People without health insurance often go without appropriate care.
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
Despite my libertarian tendencies, I have come to the reluctant opinion that there should be at least a minimal level of guaranteed health care for everyone. I'm not sure about UHC though; this may be too extreme.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
I don't see any substantial difference between government-administrated insurance and private insurance. I consider my money for private insurance as a tax (whether it's called that or not). My money still goes into a pool which if everyone in the pool were to tap into, the insurance company would go bankrupt. Insurance companies know that this is statistically unlikely, thus they have a money making proposition. A government-based insurance scheme would work equivalently. In other words, my insurance money is paying for other people's health care because I'm a relatively healthy adult. This is absolutely no different from a tax.
That said, I think a government-based health insurance program could work, or rather, could work as good as anything else. To be honest, this isn't saying much as there's ample evidence of the insurance industy not working. Eh...I don't have a good answer on what the best scheme would be. Probably some experimentation is in order. Or if there are any economic game theorists lurking on this forum, they could probably discuss different systems (pros & cons).
Despite my libertarian tendencies, I have come to the reluctant opinion that there should be at least a minimal level of guaranteed health care for everyone. I'm not sure about UHC though; this may be too extreme.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
I don't see any substantial difference between government-administrated insurance and private insurance. I consider my money for private insurance as a tax (whether it's called that or not). My money still goes into a pool which if everyone in the pool were to tap into, the insurance company would go bankrupt. Insurance companies know that this is statistically unlikely, thus they have a money making proposition. A government-based insurance scheme would work equivalently. In other words, my insurance money is paying for other people's health care because I'm a relatively healthy adult. This is absolutely no different from a tax.
That said, I think a government-based health insurance program could work, or rather, could work as good as anything else. To be honest, this isn't saying much as there's ample evidence of the insurance industy not working. Eh...I don't have a good answer on what the best scheme would be. Probably some experimentation is in order. Or if there are any economic game theorists lurking on this forum, they could probably discuss different systems (pros & cons).
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
Depends. Single Payer? as in the Government? No. I have however been reading alot of Radical Centrist theory lately. One interesting idea is to make A minimum level of health insurance mandatory as car insurance is. Means tested of course so that those below a certain income level would be paid for, partially or in full (dependent on income) by the US government. Better health insurance can be purchased as better car insurance can.
New America Foundation on UHC
The idea is that it allows for the continued competition in the health care system and the financial incentives that have driven medical innovations to date. Without these incentives why would anyone do the work? Are there really that many Doctors / Scientist you can think of that are that selfless? Selfishness is human nature. Capitalism uses that to the betterment of the society.
I have not made up my mind on this one just yet but it is very interesting and it seems much more realistic, practical and possible then the single payer model. It is the first idea to date that seemed realistic, fair, and American enough for me to even consider supporting it.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
Without socializing America, we could never afford it and once socialized the financial motivation for innovation and invention are gone. However, the idea I mentioned above it really interesting.
Almost every innovation in America can look to Capitalism as it's primary reason for existing. Most people want to improve their financial lives. So they work hard to create things that make America better and stronger because they get paid very well to do it. Wages, royalties, profits or whatever. Sure capitalism has it's problems as well, that is what reasonable governmental regulation is for.
As for Socialism's failings, consider the Israeli Kibbutz (Kibbutz), one of the purest forms of Socialism in the world. Most are truly controlled by the community and not a corrupt central leadership. I visited one when I was in Israel while serving in the Navy. Many Kibbutz, like the one I visited, are failing today because the young are either leaving, or not excelling. After all, why do all the work to become a doctor if your going to live like a farm hand? Be a farm hand, or do the work to become a doctor and then leave to follow the capitalist dream. This is the primary problem facing the Kibbutz and it is the primary problem facing socialism. Where's the motivation?
The Radical Centrist Idea linked above, though I am still not quite a supporter of it yet (but I am Darn close), is the best solution I've seen so far because it ensures that all are protected without abandoning what is most responsible for the growth of America. That be Capitalism and the human nature of greed.
Depends. Single Payer? as in the Government? No. I have however been reading alot of Radical Centrist theory lately. One interesting idea is to make A minimum level of health insurance mandatory as car insurance is. Means tested of course so that those below a certain income level would be paid for, partially or in full (dependent on income) by the US government. Better health insurance can be purchased as better car insurance can.
New America Foundation on UHC
The idea is that it allows for the continued competition in the health care system and the financial incentives that have driven medical innovations to date. Without these incentives why would anyone do the work? Are there really that many Doctors / Scientist you can think of that are that selfless? Selfishness is human nature. Capitalism uses that to the betterment of the society.
I have not made up my mind on this one just yet but it is very interesting and it seems much more realistic, practical and possible then the single payer model. It is the first idea to date that seemed realistic, fair, and American enough for me to even consider supporting it.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
Without socializing America, we could never afford it and once socialized the financial motivation for innovation and invention are gone. However, the idea I mentioned above it really interesting.
Almost every innovation in America can look to Capitalism as it's primary reason for existing. Most people want to improve their financial lives. So they work hard to create things that make America better and stronger because they get paid very well to do it. Wages, royalties, profits or whatever. Sure capitalism has it's problems as well, that is what reasonable governmental regulation is for.
As for Socialism's failings, consider the Israeli Kibbutz (Kibbutz), one of the purest forms of Socialism in the world. Most are truly controlled by the community and not a corrupt central leadership. I visited one when I was in Israel while serving in the Navy. Many Kibbutz, like the one I visited, are failing today because the young are either leaving, or not excelling. After all, why do all the work to become a doctor if your going to live like a farm hand? Be a farm hand, or do the work to become a doctor and then leave to follow the capitalist dream. This is the primary problem facing the Kibbutz and it is the primary problem facing socialism. Where's the motivation?
The Radical Centrist Idea linked above, though I am still not quite a supporter of it yet (but I am Darn close), is the best solution I've seen so far because it ensures that all are protected without abandoning what is most responsible for the growth of America. That be Capitalism and the human nature of greed.
QUOTE
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
Absolutely. Having gone through a very long period of unemployment, and having a condition that should be monitored, and having been forced to seek out homeopathic bandaids for it -- hell yeah.
QUOTE
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
The concept is very realistic for those who have gone without health insurance and been treated like DIRT by the system we have in place now. However, due to the tendency for the people of this country to follow the propaganda promoted by the corporate interest (profit) in health care, the acceptance of the realistic concept is highly doubtful.
I think enough people have to feel the failure of our system directly before change comes about.
QUOTE
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
The pros involve getting needed medical attention when circumstances such as extended unemployment strike. Another pro involves the use of the medical system to catch chronic disease before it can get to the really bad stage. And another pro will be the reduction of bankruptcies due to catastrophic illness hitting a household. This will have the side benefit of reducing family stress, and thus very likely reduce the occurances of broken families.
In other words, UHC supports true family values.
The only con I can see is the real con job of the HMO types. They will make less profit. Then all these fancy new health facilities that many of us can't use will have to be built more modestly. And executives of the HMOs will lose their cash cows.
The added tax burden will be a con that will be offset by removing the pressure of the insurance company's need for profit. But I bet if UHC ever happens here, this whole thing will be corrupted by corporate lobbyists. So that's probably the biggest con. First the influence of corporate money has to be taken out of politics.
Let's just say I'm thankful for homeopathic medicine. Guess the next step will be to figure out how to do home surgery. Just kidding.
I realize that I will pay more in taxes for UHC, but how much would businesses SAVE if all of that was removed from their hands? I often hear that Medical insurance can either stagnate or even cripple many small business, so would it be more of a benefit to business if UHC was the way?
Is there an option for a 1/2 and 1/2 kinda deal. UHC for things like coughs and colds and flu and certain medical conditions, diabetes and such and seperate insurance for surgeries?
What are some options?
Is there an option for a 1/2 and 1/2 kinda deal. UHC for things like coughs and colds and flu and certain medical conditions, diabetes and such and seperate insurance for surgeries?
What are some options?
In Ontario we employ a single-payer system, with OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) being paid for with our taxes. What this means is that any listed medical service bills the plan directly. However, not all services are listed. Those that aren't are covered by private insurance or personal expense.
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
No. The idea is noble, but I can't agree with its socialist implementation. The freedoms and rights lost in such a system are of greater detriment than the absence of doctor prescribed health care for the few.
The 15% without regular health insurance are not health-care-less. Free medical clinics are available all over where doctors and nurses contribute in a charitable way. It is not as fast or convenient, but it is available nonetheless. Also, no patient who arrives at any hospital in need of medical attention is turned away.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
Very real, as long as we have politicians and a majority of citizens who believe in socialism.
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
Pros: 15% of Americans who don't pay for health insurance now get it at tax payer expense.
Cons: The loss of freedom and rights, the additional cost of an enormous government oversight bureaucracy, and the inability for patients to sue the government for grievances (whereas now they can sue private insurance companies). These are large pills society has to swallow to provide for the few. The sum of the pros and cons produces a net loss to society.
No. The idea is noble, but I can't agree with its socialist implementation. The freedoms and rights lost in such a system are of greater detriment than the absence of doctor prescribed health care for the few.
The 15% without regular health insurance are not health-care-less. Free medical clinics are available all over where doctors and nurses contribute in a charitable way. It is not as fast or convenient, but it is available nonetheless. Also, no patient who arrives at any hospital in need of medical attention is turned away.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
Very real, as long as we have politicians and a majority of citizens who believe in socialism.
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
Pros: 15% of Americans who don't pay for health insurance now get it at tax payer expense.
Cons: The loss of freedom and rights, the additional cost of an enormous government oversight bureaucracy, and the inability for patients to sue the government for grievances (whereas now they can sue private insurance companies). These are large pills society has to swallow to provide for the few. The sum of the pros and cons produces a net loss to society.
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
I have information from two Medical Doctors locally on their insurance. One (dermatologists) pays $200,000 per year from a practice which generates $500,000 a year. The other is a obstetrician who pays $450,000 per year for insurance.
I do not support UHC. It is an intrusion which is not necessary. I do not need for government to demand my money and have a third party decide how much I need to spend on my health care and what sort of delivery system I can have. UHC does not address the insurance problem caused by legal medicine nor the excessive procedures induced by legal medicine. We need to go after the problem and not create another.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US?
Can it be done ? Yes. Is it the best way to deliver service via socialism ? No.
I have no problems with people who like the idea voluntarily joining such a plan. It should not be mandatory. I am sure such a plan is available where you could pay extra on your premium to cover you when you are unable to pay. If you prefer the government running such a system other than the private sector, you should be able to join such a voluntary system.
I have information from two Medical Doctors locally on their insurance. One (dermatologists) pays $200,000 per year from a practice which generates $500,000 a year. The other is a obstetrician who pays $450,000 per year for insurance.
I do not support UHC. It is an intrusion which is not necessary. I do not need for government to demand my money and have a third party decide how much I need to spend on my health care and what sort of delivery system I can have. UHC does not address the insurance problem caused by legal medicine nor the excessive procedures induced by legal medicine. We need to go after the problem and not create another.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US?
Can it be done ? Yes. Is it the best way to deliver service via socialism ? No.
I have no problems with people who like the idea voluntarily joining such a plan. It should not be mandatory. I am sure such a plan is available where you could pay extra on your premium to cover you when you are unable to pay. If you prefer the government running such a system other than the private sector, you should be able to join such a voluntary system.
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 27 2004, 02:19 PM)
I have information from two Medical Doctors locally on their insurance. One (dermatologists) pays $200,000 per year from a practice which generates $500,000 a year. The other is a obstetrician who pays $450,000 per year for insurance.
I do not support UHC. It is an intrusion which is not necessary. I do not need for government to demand my money and have a third party decide how much I need to spend on my health care and what sort of delivery system I can have. UHC does not address the insurance problem caused by legal medicine nor the excessive procedures induced by legal medicine. We need to go after the problem and not create another.
I do not support UHC. It is an intrusion which is not necessary. I do not need for government to demand my money and have a third party decide how much I need to spend on my health care and what sort of delivery system I can have. UHC does not address the insurance problem caused by legal medicine nor the excessive procedures induced by legal medicine. We need to go after the problem and not create another.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point here Gray Seal. It seems to me you are against Universal Health Care due to malpractice insurance?
If that is the case I'm not sure how that is even a relevant argument against Universal Health Care, unless you are arguing that it is a good thing that people don't have insurance because that means they can't sue.
This debate isn't about medical malpractice, it is about health care for everyone and the two really are in no way related.
QUOTE(deerjerkydave)
Cons: The loss of freedom and rights, the additional cost of an enormous government oversight bureaucracy, and the inability for patients to sue the government for grievances (whereas now they can sue private insurance companies). These are large pills society has to swallow to provide for the few. The sum of the pros and cons produces a net loss to society.
So many things wrong with this statement here, where to begin.
First, the idea that the bureaucracy would cost more is a MYTH.
QUOTE
MYTH: It would create a huge bureaucracy.
FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.
FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.
If you have ever called an insurance company to find out if not only the doctor is covered that you want to see, but also the facility where he does the work and the specific procedures this fact is self evident. Often when you call the hospital they'll give you the exact opposite answers or tell you to call the insurance company. The Insurance system that we have today is a complete and total bureaucratic nightmare.
Secondly, patients do not often sue insurance companies, unless they happen to be disputing coverage. What does often happen is patients suing doctors or facilities for medical malpractice. The lawsuits that are filed against insurance companies are because their published coverages and their actual coverage frequently differ. In countries with UHC, this is not a problem.
As I have said in my previous post, the cost difference between what the government pays now and what it would cost is negligible. If you believe otherwise please post some facts to refute the sources I cited earlier.
First an anecdotal story-
My initial feelings on UHC stemmed from my own experiences with French and German medicine. I broke my ankle while on a trip to France (this was when I was going to school in Germany). I was immediately taken to a French ER where they took the necessary x-ray’s and the outcome was that my break wasn’t bad, a cast would be sufficient, and they supplied me with needles that I need to inject myself with daily for the entire duration of having to wear the cast. NEEDLES, INJECTING MYSELF?? To say the least I didn’t understand then, nor do I understand now what these injections were supposed to do. We (the friends I was traveling with) drove straight back to Germany and I visited the German ER to have their doctor’s look at my break. After many hours of waiting I finally saw a doctor, they took the cast off (because the French x-rays I had weren’t good enough?) x-rayed me and came back and told me that if I didn’t have an operation that there was a good chance I wouldn’t walk again, the best worst case scenario was that I would have a severe limp. They admitted me and I got my hands on a telephone to call my parents. We decided to go with the operation. According to the German rules for patients who have an operation I was required to stay in the hospital for 10 days! 10 days? Seem extreme for simple operation putting pins in your ankle? You bet their rules were the exact opposite extreme for American hospitals where they will kick you to the curb if they can. I suggest that somewhere in between is probably sufficient. So waste v savings which is better? My recovery time till I could put weight on my ankle was about 2 ½ months. During that time I had to make regular visits to the ER. I never had my own doctor, never met the doctor that performed my surgery, and there was not one doctor that I connected with in regards to my treatment and recovery, I didn’t feel that there was any accountability for the doctor’s care. I felt like a number with a file. When I returned home and visited my orthopedic in the States, I showed him the x-rays and asked him if he would have recommended surgery like the Germans or no surgery like the French. He said that without a doubt the type of fracture I had did warrant surgery. Whether the outcome without surgery would have been as severe as the German doctor described was questionable but the end result is he would have gone for it.
I should have numbered the debate questions in a different order so I will answer in the order I wish here!
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
For now I am on the fence leaning to non support.
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
Pro-
Risk pooling the entire nation to negotiate a reasonable rate of coverage,
Everyone will have coverage regardless of their individual financial status, and
Removing employer from the rate negotiation.
Con
R&D may suffer,
Possible waste in resources,
Government in my doctor’s office,
Lack of choice in medical provider,
Becoming a number, and
Government replaces employer in rate negotiation
I am sure there are more pro’s and con’s but these are the ones that come to mind.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
I think it is unrealistic, for the time being, if a plan could be made that addresses my concerns, most importantly do I want the government making decisions on who and what when it comes to my health care? I would, though, be more agreeable to some sort of “basic needs” coverage but am uncertain as to whether this should be handled on the state level. I lean towards the state level. Some states have better Medicaid plans then others. But really why not allow for a basic needs coverage that you can buy into, individually? I hold my state of New Jersey directly responsible for my lack of coverage. It is unreasonable that a catastrophic insurance policy ($10K deductible and 50% coverage) for an individual should cost about $750 a month if you want to have a Medical Savings Account of which you need to put additional money in the account for the “tax” free status. It is unreasonable that my state regulates who I can shop from in order to have this coverage; they removed all competition from the equation and left me without insurance. But that is a matter for me to take up with my state or for me to leave my state if they don’t get their act together!
My initial feelings on UHC stemmed from my own experiences with French and German medicine. I broke my ankle while on a trip to France (this was when I was going to school in Germany). I was immediately taken to a French ER where they took the necessary x-ray’s and the outcome was that my break wasn’t bad, a cast would be sufficient, and they supplied me with needles that I need to inject myself with daily for the entire duration of having to wear the cast. NEEDLES, INJECTING MYSELF?? To say the least I didn’t understand then, nor do I understand now what these injections were supposed to do. We (the friends I was traveling with) drove straight back to Germany and I visited the German ER to have their doctor’s look at my break. After many hours of waiting I finally saw a doctor, they took the cast off (because the French x-rays I had weren’t good enough?) x-rayed me and came back and told me that if I didn’t have an operation that there was a good chance I wouldn’t walk again, the best worst case scenario was that I would have a severe limp. They admitted me and I got my hands on a telephone to call my parents. We decided to go with the operation. According to the German rules for patients who have an operation I was required to stay in the hospital for 10 days! 10 days? Seem extreme for simple operation putting pins in your ankle? You bet their rules were the exact opposite extreme for American hospitals where they will kick you to the curb if they can. I suggest that somewhere in between is probably sufficient. So waste v savings which is better? My recovery time till I could put weight on my ankle was about 2 ½ months. During that time I had to make regular visits to the ER. I never had my own doctor, never met the doctor that performed my surgery, and there was not one doctor that I connected with in regards to my treatment and recovery, I didn’t feel that there was any accountability for the doctor’s care. I felt like a number with a file. When I returned home and visited my orthopedic in the States, I showed him the x-rays and asked him if he would have recommended surgery like the Germans or no surgery like the French. He said that without a doubt the type of fracture I had did warrant surgery. Whether the outcome without surgery would have been as severe as the German doctor described was questionable but the end result is he would have gone for it.
I should have numbered the debate questions in a different order so I will answer in the order I wish here!
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
For now I am on the fence leaning to non support.
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
Pro-
Risk pooling the entire nation to negotiate a reasonable rate of coverage,
Everyone will have coverage regardless of their individual financial status, and
Removing employer from the rate negotiation.
Con
R&D may suffer,
Possible waste in resources,
Government in my doctor’s office,
Lack of choice in medical provider,
Becoming a number, and
Government replaces employer in rate negotiation
I am sure there are more pro’s and con’s but these are the ones that come to mind.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
I think it is unrealistic, for the time being, if a plan could be made that addresses my concerns, most importantly do I want the government making decisions on who and what when it comes to my health care? I would, though, be more agreeable to some sort of “basic needs” coverage but am uncertain as to whether this should be handled on the state level. I lean towards the state level. Some states have better Medicaid plans then others. But really why not allow for a basic needs coverage that you can buy into, individually? I hold my state of New Jersey directly responsible for my lack of coverage. It is unreasonable that a catastrophic insurance policy ($10K deductible and 50% coverage) for an individual should cost about $750 a month if you want to have a Medical Savings Account of which you need to put additional money in the account for the “tax” free status. It is unreasonable that my state regulates who I can shop from in order to have this coverage; they removed all competition from the equation and left me without insurance. But that is a matter for me to take up with my state or for me to leave my state if they don’t get their act together!
Cube Jockey, the reason I brought up malpractice insurance and legal medicine in the UHC debate is for the need to define the problem which needs to be fixed. Health care is expensive and its cost is continuing to rise at a high rate. As insurance is a major component of health cost would it not be prudent to address it? UHC does not address it. Therefore, UHC is not a good solution. Eliminate the cost of insurance to health care providers and the cost of health care will drop greatly, I would expect in half. With that, health care will be affordable and still be everyone's individual decision.
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
Only if it can be implemented in a way that does not increase my taxes. I have enough trouble paying for my own family's health insurance, and I am not anxious to increase that burden.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
It is only realistic if it can be shown to be of benefit to both sides--both those paying for and those receiving the benefits.
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
To me, the biggest pro would be that it would eliminate the inefficiency in the current system for dealing with those that have no insurance. Currently, if you have no insurance, you are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment. This rules out any preventive care, clogs up the emergency room, and still places the onus for payment of these services on those who do currently have insurance. So, there is considerable savings to be had if this problem were dealt with more efficiently. The other main pro, even if you currently do have health insurance, those circumstances could easily change, and it would be nice to be able to maintain coverage.
The main con, of course, is the additional cost. If the system can't be set up so that the overall cost comes down, then there's not enough incentive for change.
This to me is a classic issue where people clearly side on the left and the right, and where the merits of both seem pretty clear. I don't think there's a lot of argument against NT's assertion that health care should be a basic right (why should a child go untreated if its parents are out of work?). On the other hand, those on the right, I think, have a valid stance that it's hard enough to pay for their own insurance--footing the bill for someone else is too big a burden. However, I don't think this precludes a solution. There are benefits to be gained from implementing some form of UHC. Some form of that should be able to show a real benefit to all parties. But getting there would require politicians on both sides to turn their backs on some cherished principles and PAC's. Not sure that will ever happen.
Only if it can be implemented in a way that does not increase my taxes. I have enough trouble paying for my own family's health insurance, and I am not anxious to increase that burden.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
It is only realistic if it can be shown to be of benefit to both sides--both those paying for and those receiving the benefits.
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
To me, the biggest pro would be that it would eliminate the inefficiency in the current system for dealing with those that have no insurance. Currently, if you have no insurance, you are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment. This rules out any preventive care, clogs up the emergency room, and still places the onus for payment of these services on those who do currently have insurance. So, there is considerable savings to be had if this problem were dealt with more efficiently. The other main pro, even if you currently do have health insurance, those circumstances could easily change, and it would be nice to be able to maintain coverage.
The main con, of course, is the additional cost. If the system can't be set up so that the overall cost comes down, then there's not enough incentive for change.
This to me is a classic issue where people clearly side on the left and the right, and where the merits of both seem pretty clear. I don't think there's a lot of argument against NT's assertion that health care should be a basic right (why should a child go untreated if its parents are out of work?). On the other hand, those on the right, I think, have a valid stance that it's hard enough to pay for their own insurance--footing the bill for someone else is too big a burden. However, I don't think this precludes a solution. There are benefits to be gained from implementing some form of UHC. Some form of that should be able to show a real benefit to all parties. But getting there would require politicians on both sides to turn their backs on some cherished principles and PAC's. Not sure that will ever happen.
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 27 2004, 03:26 PM)
Cube Jockey, the reason I brought up malpractice insurance and legal medicine in the UHC debate is for the need to define the problem which needs to be fixed. Health care is expensive and its cost is continuing to rise at a high rate. As insurance is a major component of health cost would it not be prudent to address it? UHC does not address it. Therefore, UHC is not a good solution. Eliminate the cost of insurance to health care providers and the cost of health care will drop greatly, I would expect in half. With that, health care will be affordable and still be everyone's individual decision.
Ok, well I can see your point now. However, I think the problem with insurance premiums may be a moot point. It is my understanding that the health insurance industry would basically "go away" and the government would replace them under the single-payer plans. By definition those plans require the government to be the sole source of funds for medical insurance.
If you want to check out Kucinich's proposal on his website, it is as good as any and explains things fairly well. It is more in depth than what I have quoted below and worth a read.
QUOTE
My plan is called Enhanced Medicare for All -- a universal, single-payer system of national health insurance, carefully phased in over 10 years. It addresses everyone's needs, including the 45 million Americans without coverage and those paying exorbitant rates for health insurance. This approach to health care emphasizes patient choice, and puts doctors and patients in control of the system, not insurance companies. And it does not cost any extra money. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans, encourage prevention and include prescription drugs, dental care, mental health care, and alternative and complementary medicine.
This plan is based on a bill I introduced together with Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, H.R. 676. Under this plan, individuals would not have to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays. Other candidates would leave the insurance companies in charge. Right now, the insurance and the pharmaceutical companies own us. We need to take our health care system back.
Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and HMOs, institutions that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. Right now, private companies are charging about 18% for administration, while the cost of Medicare administration is only 3%. People are waiting longer for appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. Physicians are being given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage. It's important to understand that insurance companies make more money by NOT providing health care. A single-payer system can save money by investing in preventive care, as well as by cutting out the insurance companies' profits.
Over time, my plan will remove private insurance companies from the system -- along with their waste, paperwork, profits, excessive executive salaries, advertising, sales commissions, etc -- and redirect resources to actual treatment. Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone. Physicians and health practitioners do.
Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health care spending while providing more treatment and services -- through reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk purchasing of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last year cost the United States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States.
This plan is based on a bill I introduced together with Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, H.R. 676. Under this plan, individuals would not have to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays. Other candidates would leave the insurance companies in charge. Right now, the insurance and the pharmaceutical companies own us. We need to take our health care system back.
Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and HMOs, institutions that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. Right now, private companies are charging about 18% for administration, while the cost of Medicare administration is only 3%. People are waiting longer for appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. Physicians are being given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage. It's important to understand that insurance companies make more money by NOT providing health care. A single-payer system can save money by investing in preventive care, as well as by cutting out the insurance companies' profits.
Over time, my plan will remove private insurance companies from the system -- along with their waste, paperwork, profits, excessive executive salaries, advertising, sales commissions, etc -- and redirect resources to actual treatment. Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone. Physicians and health practitioners do.
Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health care spending while providing more treatment and services -- through reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk purchasing of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last year cost the United States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States.
This is actually one of the few things I completely agree with Kucinich on.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jul 27 2004, 03:37 PM)
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 27 2004, 03:26 PM)
Cube Jockey, the reason I brought up malpractice insurance and legal medicine in the UHC debate is for the need to define the problem which needs to be fixed. Health care is expensive and its cost is continuing to rise at a high rate. As insurance is a major component of health cost would it not be prudent to address it? UHC does not address it. Therefore, UHC is not a good solution. Eliminate the cost of insurance to health care providers and the cost of health care will drop greatly, I would expect in half. With that, health care will be affordable and still be everyone's individual decision.
Ok, well I can see your point now. However, I think the problem with insurance premiums may be a moot point. It is my understanding that the health insurance industry would basically "go away" and the government would replace them under the single-payer plans. By definition those plans require the government to be the sole source of funds for medical insurance.
The costs of insurance coverage are hardly moot, because they are a reflection of the costs of health care. Though 'the government' would pay under the Universal healthcare system, the government will be getting its funding for these payments from the people. How will the costs be contained? Losses paid for malpractice cases have increased 1300 percent since 1975-over twice the rate of medical-care inflation. More than half of all doctors have been sued for malpractice. In critical states like Pennsylvania, only two malpractice insurers remain, down from ten five years ago.
For this reason, billions are spent on defensive medicine, hospital in-house lawyers, and lost time that those doctors have to spend with lawyers instead of with patients. As it stands now, our public spending on healthcare (as a percentage of GDP) basically matches the UK and Australian public expenses at 5.8 percent..while those countries’ populations receive universal care. Total spending per person in dollar figures, is the highest in the world by far.
How have things gotten so out of control? Hypothetical example: Jill breaks her toe and goes to the emergency room. The doctor treats the toe injury. Later, Jill learns that she is pregnant, but loses the baby due to complications from a venereal disease. Jill sues the first doctor for not running a diagnostic test for venereal disease while she was in the emergency room for her broken toe. She is awarded thousands through the court system. Afterwards, every doctor within the hospital tests every woman (ages 13-55) entering his/her emergency room for treatment, regardless of the ailment, 160 dollars extra to screen for venereal disease. The insurance companies pay and pass those costs to the consumers.
The above scenario of Jill (not her real name) actually happened at a hospital where I once worked. If it were limited to the one person, it would be inconsequential. Unfortunately, there are thousands of such cases throughout the country, raising the cost of medicine through defensive testing, and malpractice insurance coverage through the roof. That’s the exact reason most Euro systems have some variety of no-fault.
I actually placed myself on the fence for the debate question about healthcare. We need to address the underlying reasons for skyrocketing costs first. If there isn’t some sort of tort reform, any system of universal healthcare will be unrealistic and eventually bankrupt us. Preventative medicine SHOULD, and could save costs for everyone longterm, but not without this reform.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 27 2004, 06:16 PM)
The costs of insurance coverage are hardly moot, because they are a reflection of the costs of health care. Though 'the government' would pay under the Universal healthcare system, the government will be getting its funding for these payments from the people. How will the costs be contained? Losses paid for malpractice cases have increased 1300 percent since 1975-over twice the rate of medical-care inflation. More than half of all doctors have been sued for malpractice. In critical states like Pennsylvania, only two malpractice insurers remain, down from ten five years ago.
Mrs. P I'm not arguing that we should not reform the whole idea of medical malpractice, but I still maintain that is not really a valid reason to argue against Universal Health Care. It is almost a straw man argument, medical malpractice is bad so therefore we shouldn't have Universal Health Care.
The Universal Health Care plans do not replace medical malpractice insurance, none of them propose methods to handle it. Furthermore it is a constant in the equation, if you went with UHC you'd still have to deal with medical malpractice, if you stay with the status quo we still have problems with medical malpractice.
There are several problems contributing to higher healthcare costs today, malpractice suits are a very minor portion of that - Healthcare costs are up. Here are the culprits.
QUOTE
• Drug companies spend roughly as much on advertising and promotion - $20 billion a year - as they do on research and development of new drugs.
• Overall, American pharmaceutical firms employ one sales person for every physician in the country. They also pick up the tab for doctors to attend seminars promoting their products, which happen to take place in desirable locations, such as Florida and the Caribbean.
• New technology - from diagnostic devices to surgical techniques - accounts for more than half the rise in total healthcare spending in the past three years, says Andrew Tilton, an economist at Goldman Sachs, an investment bank in New York.
• Despite rising costs, profit margins on healthcare products and services, including health insurance, have been going up - rapidly - rather than down. Mr. Tilton says mergers have increased providers' pricing power.
• Overall, American pharmaceutical firms employ one sales person for every physician in the country. They also pick up the tab for doctors to attend seminars promoting their products, which happen to take place in desirable locations, such as Florida and the Caribbean.
• New technology - from diagnostic devices to surgical techniques - accounts for more than half the rise in total healthcare spending in the past three years, says Andrew Tilton, an economist at Goldman Sachs, an investment bank in New York.
• Despite rising costs, profit margins on healthcare products and services, including health insurance, have been going up - rapidly - rather than down. Mr. Tilton says mergers have increased providers' pricing power.
Is Universal Health Care a panacea? No it isn't, but it is a large step in the right direction. There are of course a number of problems with the industry in general.
QUOTE
# Near-Universal Health Care Coverage, $895 Billion
# Mandatory Funding For Veterans Health Care, $211 Billion
# Allow Medicaid To Pay For More Alternative Care Outside Of Nursing Homes, $200 Billion
# Mandatory Funding For Veterans Health Care, $211 Billion
# Allow Medicaid To Pay For More Alternative Care Outside Of Nursing Homes, $200 Billion
Universal health care is FAR too expensive for America to implement in a short period of time as John Kerry proposes. Yet, the benefits of having every single American insured through health insurance is simply wonderful. But, will it have the effect it had on Canada and Britain, lowering the level of quality health care in the country? -Britain and Canada have lowered the quality of their health care system: "According to the WHO, Britain has the equivalent of 3rd world cancer care."---"People in Canada have had to go to vets in order to obtain MRIs because of the long, sometimes endless, waitlists."
Universal health care would be the best thing America could do, yet there are a few questions that must be considered.
Is there a way for America to implement this budget-efficently?
Is there a way for America to implement this without diminishing the quality of healthcare, as demonstrated in Canada and England?
If this is possible, then I believe America will be far better, a fully insured nation.
Universal Health Care cannot, and should not be considered until our country's health care program is corrected. Health Care is now the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the United States. It is responsible for approxamatley 100,000 deaths each year in the United States alone. So with that said, why has our government spent, and continued to spend over 1 trillion dollars a year for a health care system that is far past broke? With a family health care plan for a family of 4 costing somewhere in the ball park over 600-800 dollars, American families can be making decent wages, and still have a hard time making ends meet. There is an old adage, "If its not broke, don't fix it," and its apparent that those who can afford high cost health care, like politicans who can change things, don't see a problem. But there is another adage, "A hog gets fed, and a pig gets slaughtered." For these reasons, and more which can't all be explaned in this forum, the concept of a UHC system is quite un realistic at this time. It won't work, you can put gas in a car that has no engine and expect to drive it, and you can't pour billions of dollars to fun a UHC system to operate in hospitals that can't function.
QUOTE(stehenallein @ Jul 28 2004, 01:06 AM)
Universal Health Care cannot, and should not be considered until our country's health care program is corrected. Health Care is now the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the United States. It is responsible for approxamatley 100,000 deaths each year in the United States alone. So with that said, why has our government spent, and continued to spend over 1 trillion dollars a year for a health care system that is far past broke? ... For these reasons, and more which can't all be explaned in this forum, ...
First of all, do you have a good link to where you got your facts from? Both the 100,000 number and the 1 trillion number are highly suspect (the entire government budget is just over 1 trillion, so not sure how the government spends ALL of its money on health care).
As for why you can't explain something on AD... just wow. Didn't think there was ANYTHING short of something anatomical or involving profanity that couldn't be explained here.
1. Do you support an effort for Universal Health Care (UHC) system in the US?
Not at all. In theory it would be nice, but in theory public education, welfare, Medicare, and social Security would work as well.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
The concept of UHC is unrealistic at best. Why you ask? Because we have a thing called illegal immigration for one. We would end up spending Billions on providing health care to those that do not pay taxes for it. If our health system is the problem than why do so many come to the US for treatment? If you want to talk about health care for our low income elderly, children of low income families or TEMPORARY care for the unemployed, thats fine. They are our past and our future but every American between has an opportunity to get health care. They just need to work. I know how expensive it is, I pay for it. But that doesn't mean that our current system can't be fixed. My personal fix is not to cap the amount someone can sue for, but how about allowing a jury to decide and then have a board of Doctors, Lawyers, and average civilians decide if the amount was fair. How about making it so that doctors are held responsible if they do something blatantly wrong. Maybe they should lose their jobs, or have to put up as much as they possibly can to cover the judgements. If a cop shoots an unarmed man they can be held accountable, why would we expect any less of our doctors?
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
The Pros would have to be that all are covered.
The Cons would be more wasteful bureaucracy, Degradation of our health system, Higher Taxes, Supporting Illegal immigrants, ect.
Our government just like all others, fails miserably when they tell us how to spend our money. They should give us the FREEDOM to decide where our hard earned $$ are spent and not dictate to us who we have to support. I have a hard enough time supporting my family as it is. I can't imagine how much harder it will be after the government starts this infinately costly tax program. Look at Social Security. Talk about a failed program. Look at MediCare.. How about our Welfare system. We can't do Socialism right.. Nobody can... Let people decide where they want to spend their money and stop trying to dictate to me that I must support anyone besides my family. That is what charities are for..
Sorry, it just upsets me to think that I have to bust my hump working everyday so that I can support every un or under-educated person in the country. I don't make much money, but I don't want hand-outs either. Once a program like this starts it never stops, It never changes, and it always fails us.
Not at all. In theory it would be nice, but in theory public education, welfare, Medicare, and social Security would work as well.
2. How realistic is the concept of UHC system in the US? Why or Why not?
The concept of UHC is unrealistic at best. Why you ask? Because we have a thing called illegal immigration for one. We would end up spending Billions on providing health care to those that do not pay taxes for it. If our health system is the problem than why do so many come to the US for treatment? If you want to talk about health care for our low income elderly, children of low income families or TEMPORARY care for the unemployed, thats fine. They are our past and our future but every American between has an opportunity to get health care. They just need to work. I know how expensive it is, I pay for it. But that doesn't mean that our current system can't be fixed. My personal fix is not to cap the amount someone can sue for, but how about allowing a jury to decide and then have a board of Doctors, Lawyers, and average civilians decide if the amount was fair. How about making it so that doctors are held responsible if they do something blatantly wrong. Maybe they should lose their jobs, or have to put up as much as they possibly can to cover the judgements. If a cop shoots an unarmed man they can be held accountable, why would we expect any less of our doctors?
3. What are the pros and cons of UHC in the States?
The Pros would have to be that all are covered.
The Cons would be more wasteful bureaucracy, Degradation of our health system, Higher Taxes, Supporting Illegal immigrants, ect.
Our government just like all others, fails miserably when they tell us how to spend our money. They should give us the FREEDOM to decide where our hard earned $$ are spent and not dictate to us who we have to support. I have a hard enough time supporting my family as it is. I can't imagine how much harder it will be after the government starts this infinately costly tax program. Look at Social Security. Talk about a failed program. Look at MediCare.. How about our Welfare system. We can't do Socialism right.. Nobody can... Let people decide where they want to spend their money and stop trying to dictate to me that I must support anyone besides my family. That is what charities are for..
Sorry, it just upsets me to think that I have to bust my hump working everyday so that I can support every un or under-educated person in the country. I don't make much money, but I don't want hand-outs either. Once a program like this starts it never stops, It never changes, and it always fails us.
My numbers are from the GOP website... (gop.com) on their feature 'Spendometer,' which breaks down all of John Kerry's campaign promises and their costs.
QUOTE(nivekelly @ Jul 28 2004, 02:53 AM)
But, will it have the effect it had on Canada and Britain, lowering the level of quality health care in the country?
-Britain and Canada have lowered the quality of their health care system: "According to the WHO, Britain has the equivalent of 3rd world cancer care."---"People in Canada have had to go to vets in order to obtain MRIs because of the long, sometimes endless, waitlists."
-Britain and Canada have lowered the quality of their health care system: "According to the WHO, Britain has the equivalent of 3rd world cancer care."---"People in Canada have had to go to vets in order to obtain MRIs because of the long, sometimes endless, waitlists."
There are a few problems with this, and a few vast exagerations. I am canadian and lived quite a while in the UK, so allow me to set you straight. Yes Health care in the UK has diminished in quality, bu thats not because of the nature of socialised medicine, its because for 12 years the conservative government starved it of funding, refusing to allow purchase of new equipment or modernisation of facilities. Thus now it is suffering, and the conservatives in the UK have the gall to turn around as if surprised and say "Told you health care would not work".
In Canada the health care coverage and quality is on average better then in the US. I refer you back to Cub Jockey's quote from the American medical Association:
QUOTE
The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.
That quote about getting MRIs from Vets is hogwash, waiting times for MRIs were ling when the technology first came out, now my Uncle had an MRI and had to wait for (gasp) FOUR WHOLE DAYS! And his MRI was non critical so not even on the priority least.
The US is justifiably, but excessively proud of the fact that they have some of the best hospitals in the world, places like Johns Hopkins and the like are truly above the rest. But these rare superlatives do NOT represent the average hospital in the US, and on average patient care is BLOW the rest of the first world nations, all of which have some form of either socialised medicince or universal health care.
The far right presents the diminishing of patient care as some kind of boogeyman, but firstly that is simply not supported by the facts, secondly EVEN IF it were, how can quality of patient care get any worse for the millions of Americans who cannot afford to go to the doctor?
Some of the other arguments are equalliy just the hobgoblins of little minds:
1) It's funny, do Americans think they are the only country to deal with illegal immigration? Do Americans think they suffer from the highest rate of illegal immigration per capita?
Neither is remotely true. Illegal immigration is a huge problem for all first world countries, and nations like France and Germany deal with it a LOT more than the US does per capita, yet their have functioning health care systems. In canada there is a healt care. All citizens and landed immigrants get one. No health card, no free medical service excepting emergency or trauma care. period.
2) "The US cannot afford it." This one just confuses me. Is not the US justifiably proud of being the richest nation on earth, both in real terms and per capita? So how is it every ofther first world nation, be definition poorer than the US, has been able to afford it?
Nivekelly, there are a whole host of non-biased resources which are infinitely more accurate. I would also suggest that in the future you link to a resource instead of just telling us about it.
I don't understand your logic. You are already paying for it. Illegal immigrants already use the health-care system, placing a burden on hospitals, which is then passed along to paying customers in the form of higher insurance and service costs. A single-payer system wouldn't change this at all. In Canada nobody is denied service; but if you're not a legal resident then you are not covered either. It works the same here as it does in the U.S. right now.
So how then do you account for the countries that DO manage successful single-payer or nationalized health care programs? Following your logic either they SHOULD fail; either that or the American government is just more inept than others. I don't think that's what you are saying...
The facts are borne out in the body of research that suggests that single-payer systems actually REDUCE inefficiencies and REDUCE costs; as do real-world examples.
QUOTE
Because we have a thing called illegal immigration for one. We would end up spending Billions on providing health care to those that do not pay taxes for it.
I don't understand your logic. You are already paying for it. Illegal immigrants already use the health-care system, placing a burden on hospitals, which is then passed along to paying customers in the form of higher insurance and service costs. A single-payer system wouldn't change this at all. In Canada nobody is denied service; but if you're not a legal resident then you are not covered either. It works the same here as it does in the U.S. right now.
QUOTE
Our government just like all others, fails miserably when they tell us how to spend our money. They should give us the FREEDOM to decide where our hard earned $$ are spent and not dictate to us who we have to support. I have a hard enough time supporting my family as it is. I can't imagine how much harder it will be after the government starts this infinately costly tax program.
So how then do you account for the countries that DO manage successful single-payer or nationalized health care programs? Following your logic either they SHOULD fail; either that or the American government is just more inept than others. I don't think that's what you are saying...
The facts are borne out in the body of research that suggests that single-payer systems actually REDUCE inefficiencies and REDUCE costs; as do real-world examples.
QUOTE(nivekelly @ Jul 28 2004, 09:53 AM)
My numbers are from the GOP website... (gop.com) on their feature 'Spendometer,' which breaks down all of John Kerry's campaign promises and their costs.
Very good of you to post where you got your info from nivekelly, but do you think that the information might be somewhat partisanly determined? Perhaps the numbers didn't originate from the GOP and they took them from somewhere else? What are the assumptions behind the numbers? Or was it just easier having a "Spendometer" to wow the masses and make you think that they really had figured out the true costs of Kerry's proposals?
Of course, the GOP are also looking to reelect the Administration that intentionally cooked the books on the recent Medicare Drug package, so maybe you might want to also consider that when you quote from their web site. It's also the same Administration that came up with the doozy "Deficits don't matter", so why would they worry about what Kerry wants to spend?
Sorry AMF, I was relying on what I thought a reliable source...Though aware the GOP would obivously be partisan I thought they needed to be factual.
QUOTE
The concept of UHC is unrealistic at best. Why you ask? Because we have a thing called illegal immigration for one. We would end up spending Billions on providing health care to those that do not pay taxes for it. If our health system is the problem than why do so many come to the US for treatment?
Interesting point. UHC would only work, of course, if health care was then denied to illegal immigrants. I'm not sure how that would sit with its supporters, as it goes against the concept of health care for all. It would solve one of the current issues, though, in that it would eliminate the cost of providing that care currently, which is currently being a burden to everyone else using the system.
QUOTE
which is currently being a burden to everyone else using the system.
I don't understand this thinking. If the healhcare system as it is constituted isn't collapsing, then why would a single-payer system which handles illegals the same way? As it stands, illegals aren't denied emergency services, but everything else is paid out of pocket. If that same approach is carried over to a UHC system, I don't see it being any more of an obstacle than it is now; in fact I see it as less of one. With decreased overage, and less beauracracy (which is a reality), the external costs become more manageable.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 28 2004, 08:21 AM)
QUOTE
The concept of UHC is unrealistic at best. Why you ask? Because we have a thing called illegal immigration for one. We would end up spending Billions on providing health care to those that do not pay taxes for it. If our health system is the problem than why do so many come to the US for treatment?
Interesting point. UHC would only work, of course, if health care was then denied to illegal immigrants. I'm not sure how that would sit with its supporters, as it goes against the concept of health care for all. It would solve one of the current issues, though, in that it would eliminate the cost of providing that care currently, which is currently being a burden to everyone else using the system.
I don't think that is necessarily true Hobbes, Vermillion described how it worked in Canada:
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Illegal immigration is a huge problem for all first world countries, and nations like France and Germany deal with it a LOT more than the US does per capita, yet their have functioning health care systems. In canada there is a health care. All citizens and landed immigrants get one. No health card, no free medical service excepting emergency or trauma care. period.
To me that sounds pretty reasonable, no health card - no health care unless it is an emergency service. This would actually be an improvement from the way things are today, because I believe a lot of hospitals give care first and worry about payment later, if you can't pay your bill guess who eats the cost? The tax payers.
As far as cost concerns go, I'll pull a few more things from Kucinich's Plan, because he is the only politician I have come across with a good far reaching plan.
QUOTE
The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has said: "If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."
How would we pay for it? Well according to Kucinich, it wouldbn't be all that different from the way we do it right now - Kucinich Proposes Health Plan
QUOTE
Kucinich proposes a 7.7-percent payroll tax on employers to pay for a single-payer health insurance system covering all Americans. It would end private insurance and cover all Americans under a program based on Medicare, the federal health insurance program for older Americans.
The congressman said businesses will support his plan because 8.5 percent of their costs already go to paying for health insurance, based on industry estimates. Under his plan, they would save money.
"This is going to be good for business because they are going to pay less," he said.
The congressman said businesses will support his plan because 8.5 percent of their costs already go to paying for health insurance, based on industry estimates. Under his plan, they would save money.
"This is going to be good for business because they are going to pay less," he said.
These fears that costs would spiral out of control or that our taxes would have to be greatly increased are completely unfounded. I keep playing up Kucinich's plan because it is the best one out there and under that plan Americans would pay nothing for healthcare and take home more of their check each month.
I don't know how everyone's health insurance works but with my employer I think I pay about $50 a pay period to cover my part of the costs (that is in addition to the payroll taxes my employer pays). Under Kucinich's plan I would all of a sudden have $100 more a month and my employer would be paying less which would help them and you never know, they might even use that money to increase salaries.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jul 28 2004, 08:57 AM)
As far as cost concerns go, I'll pull a few more things from Kucinich's Plan, because he is the only politician I have come across with a good far reaching plan.
QUOTE
The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has said: "If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."
So, there would be no associated overhead costs involved in implementing and running universal healthcare?
Methinks the GAO smoke ‘em peacepipes. It is highly likely Kucinich is splicing the GAO report, leaving out something pertinent to sell his idea (I don't doubt his sincerity, but these figures violate the reasonablility test). How could we take our current system of healthcare, which costs MORE THEN DOUBLE WHAT CANADA PAYS, remove ten percent (which wouldn't be possible, because the government workers would likely not run this for free) and somehow come out square? The NHS is the largest employer in Europe. Don’t expect costs to be cut on the overhead end. If UHC is to become a reality, we have to deal with the root of skyrocketing costs first.On the off-chance that this interests anyone, the GAO also says,:
“Multiple factors, including falling investment income and rising reinsurance costs, have contributed to recent increases in premium rates in our sample states. However, GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims -- which make up the largest part of insurers' costs -- appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run."
So if all that savings would come from having a single-payer system... what happens to all the companies -- like Blue Cross / Blue Shield, Aetna, etc. -- who provide health insurance services? What then for them and the employees handling all these claims? Layoffs? Shift them to work for the government? (oh, the Conservative commentators will LOVE that!)
There's gotta be a profit motive in here for the insurance industry -- which contributes millions and millions to candidates -- for this to work. Ideas?
There's gotta be a profit motive in here for the insurance industry -- which contributes millions and millions to candidates -- for this to work. Ideas?
It's funny to watch Democrats talk about a NHC system, but do you actually believe their special interest groups would allow it to happen?
The main one being the Assn of Trial Lawyers of America. Who donated $19,950,110 to the Democrats since 1990.
Open secrets fact sheet on the Assn of Trial Lawyers
Now here is the rub. The ATLA would lobby hard against the democrats against passing any kind of NHC system and they know it.
It's all just a big show. The democrats want to talk big about having a NHC system but in reality they would never make it happen.
The main one being the Assn of Trial Lawyers of America. Who donated $19,950,110 to the Democrats since 1990.
QUOTE
he Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) has 56,000 members worldwide. A lobbying heavyweight, the association has been battling any attempt at tort reform, including recent proposals to cap awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. ATLA also lobbies Congress on any legislation that may inhibit the ability of consumers to bring lawsuits, particularly against health care providers, asbestos companies or insurance companies processing claims related to terrorism. The association favors Democrats, who oppose most attempts to initiate tort reform.
Open secrets fact sheet on the Assn of Trial Lawyers
Now here is the rub. The ATLA would lobby hard against the democrats against passing any kind of NHC system and they know it.
It's all just a big show. The democrats want to talk big about having a NHC system but in reality they would never make it happen.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jul 28 2004, 12:37 PM)
It's funny to watch Democrats talk about a NHC system, but do you actually believe their special interest groups would allow it to happen?
The main one being the Assn of Trial Lawyers of America. Who donated $19,950,110 to the Democrats since 1990.
The main one being the Assn of Trial Lawyers of America. Who donated $19,950,110 to the Democrats since 1990.
That's it? Just $20 million in 12 years???
Heck, the insurance industry gave $15,064,122 to the Republican so far in this election cycle!! Health professionals gave $25 million in this cycle so far.(opensecrets.org)
Speaking of special interest groups...
Who's zoomin' who here, sleeper? BOTH parties are beholdin' to a number of special interest groups that wouldn't want to see a single-payer system in place.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Jul 28 2004, 11:38 AM)
QUOTE
which is currently being a burden to everyone else using the system.
I don't understand this thinking. If the healhcare system as it is constituted isn't collapsing, then why would a single-payer system which handles illegals the same way? As it stands, illegals aren't denied emergency services, but everything else is paid out of pocket. If that same approach is carried over to a UHC system, I don't see it being any more of an obstacle than it is now; in fact I see it as less of one. With decreased overage, and less beauracracy (which is a reality), the external costs become more manageable.
Less beauracracy from a social program? I highly doubt it. As far as not letting illegals get medical care, it won't happen. No politician will deny illegals healthcare that would be the end of their career. They can't even talk about stopping illegal immigration in an election year. Kerry wants to make them citizens. Bush wants to make them temporary workers. I'll have to go with Bush on that one.
QUOTE(amf @ Jul 28 2004, 11:44 AM)
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jul 28 2004, 12:37 PM)
It's funny to watch Democrats talk about a NHC system, but do you actually believe their special interest groups would allow it to happen?
The main one being the Assn of Trial Lawyers of America. Who donated $19,950,110 to the Democrats since 1990.
The main one being the Assn of Trial Lawyers of America. Who donated $19,950,110 to the Democrats since 1990.
That's it? Just $20 million in 12 years???
Heck, the insurance industry gave $15,064,122 to the Republican so far in this election cycle!! Health professionals gave $25 million in this cycle so far.(opensecrets.org)
Speaking of special interest groups...
Who's zoomin' who here, sleeper? BOTH parties are beholdin' to a number of special interest groups that wouldn't want to see a single-payer system in place. Not so fast... The Assn of Trail Lawyers is just a small Association of the all Lawyers/Law Firms.
From Lawyers/Law Firms at Open Secrets
Total Contributions to Dems is a staggering $69,617,882 from Lawyers/Law firms.
And that is just in 2004!!!
Since 1990 that number, are you ready for this, is $406 million dollars.
Republicans have never said they wanted to implement a NHC system. While democrats "talk" about it all the time.
The truth of the matter is when it comes down to it they will never act on their words.
It's easy to say universal health care but I'm not sure how universal we can make it. Like any other service health care costs vary based on quality. High quality doctors should be paid accordingly and higher tech equipment is more expensive. I don't know how the government can account for this since it's very hard to assign health care a value other than in a marketplace. Let's say the government says a doctor visit should cost $25. Some doctors are going to be able to make money at $25 because they use lower quality equipment and spend less time and effort. Better doctors with better equipment won't be able to make money at $25. What does the better doctor do? They either lower their quality or they charge $125 per visit and the system isn't so universal anymore.
QUOTE
So, there would be no associated overhead costs involved in implementing and running universal healthcare?
As I'm sure anyone who has dealt with an HMO or general insurer can attest, those organizations are just as byzantine as any government program. The fact is that there is a terrible (and in some ways terribly unfounded) stigma against government beauracracy that is not always borne out by the facts. Every corporation, as every government organization is going to be riddled with inefficiencies. If you can prove beyond the general aphorisms and platitudes that you riddled your post with that government run single-payer healthcare will be more inefficient, be my guest.
The fact remains that once you have a single organization that reports only to the taxpayers (instead of shareholders) then you have already achieved a great savings. As the goal ofa health-insurer is to ensure a profit and growth, the goal of a single-payer system is to achieve the best universal healthcare at the lowest cost.
QUOTE
So, there would be no associated overhead costs involved in implementing and running universal healthcare?
As I mentioned earlier, here in Ontario (healthcare is run differently in the various provinces) private insurance companies still operate. However, they provide coverage beyond the services covered by OHIP, like say a second dental exam every year.
QUOTE
Less beauracracy from a social program?
You know, I've noticed in the past that people rely on these sorts in sentiments in lieu of facts or evidence. Where would savings be achieved? Well, payments and bonuses to CEOs would be a good start...
QUOTE(Woolhandler and Himmelstein)
For-profit executives reap princely rewards, draining money from care. Then Columbia/HCA’s CEO resigned in the face of fraud investigations, he left with a $10 million severance package and $324 million in company stock. Tenet’s CEO exercised stock options worth $111 millionshortly before being forced out in 2003,13 and the head of HealthSouth (the dominant provider of rehabilitation care)
made $112 million in 2002,13 the year before his indictment for fraud.
made $112 million in 2002,13 the year before his indictment for fraud.
$10 Million will by itself purchase and maintain an MRI machine for a year.
QUOTE(Woolhandler and Himmelstein)
Those who favour for-profit health care argue that the profit motive optimizes care and minimizes costs. In this issue P.J. Devereaux and colleagues add to the considerable evidence that this dogma has no clothes. Their meticulous meta-analysis demonstrates a pattern of higher payments for care in private, investor owned hospitals as compared with private not-for-profit hospitals.
...
The excess payments for care in private for-profit institutions were substantial: 19%. This figure implies that the US$37 billion that Americans paid for care at investorowned acute care hospitals in 20013 would have cost only US$31 billion at not-for-profit hospitals — a waste of US$6 billion. But higher acute care (and rehabilitation4) hospital payments are not the whole story on investor owned
care. For-profit hospitals and dialysis clinics have high death rates. Investor-owned nursing homes are more frequently cited for quality deficiencies and provide less
nursing care, and investor-owned hospices provide less care to the dying, than non-for-profit facilities.
...
The excess payments for care in private for-profit institutions were substantial: 19%. This figure implies that the US$37 billion that Americans paid for care at investorowned acute care hospitals in 20013 would have cost only US$31 billion at not-for-profit hospitals — a waste of US$6 billion. But higher acute care (and rehabilitation4) hospital payments are not the whole story on investor owned
care. For-profit hospitals and dialysis clinics have high death rates. Investor-owned nursing homes are more frequently cited for quality deficiencies and provide less
nursing care, and investor-owned hospices provide less care to the dying, than non-for-profit facilities.
1. Himmelstein, David and Steffie Woolhandler. "The high costs of for-profit care." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal. 6/8/2004, Vol. 170 Issue 12, p1814, 2p
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Jul 28 2004, 01:45 PM)
QUOTE
So, there would be no associated overhead costs involved in implementing and running universal healthcare?
As I'm sure anyone who has dealt with an HMO or general insurer can attest, those organizations are just as byzantine as any government program. The fact is that there is a terrible (and in some ways terribly unfounded) stigma against government beauracracy that is not always borne out by the facts. Every corporation, as every government organization is going to be riddled with inefficiencies. If you can prove beyond the general aphorisms and platitudes that you riddled your post with that government run single-payer healthcare will be more inefficient, be my guest.
The quote I was responding to presumed that the shift to universal coverage would offer a savings in administrative costs. A savings so high, it would more than offset the expense of universal coverage. Care to prove it would be that much MORE efficient than privately run?
What expense are you referring to? In the U.S. system you are already paying for the insurance of other people. Administrative savings would be achieved through amalgamating hundreds of large organizations. I can't prove that American single-payer administration would be more expensive, because it hasn't happened yet. But comparisons between the two systems are very easy to find. Here's the first item returned by a google search:
Here's an abstract from a New England Journal of Medicine article on the subject...
The conclusion of the the authors':
I even managed to find some good information from a site that actually opposes a single payer system. Here:
QUOTE
Thirty-one cents of every dollar spent on health care in the United States goes to pay administrative costs — nearly double the rate in Canada, according to a new comparison that sees colossal bureaucratic waste in the American system.
Americans spend $752 more per person per year than Canadians on medical administrative costs alone, according to the study by investigators from Harvard University and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which was published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine.
Researchers who prepared the comparison said yesterday that the United States wastes more money on health bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to the tens of millions of uninsured Americans.
The team, led by Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard, said a large sum of money might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style, single-payer health care system.
"The difference in the costs of health-care administration between the United States and Canada is clearly large and growing," the researchers said, questioning whether the $294.3 billion spent each year on U.S. health care administration is money well spent.
Americans spend $752 more per person per year than Canadians on medical administrative costs alone, according to the study by investigators from Harvard University and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which was published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine.
Researchers who prepared the comparison said yesterday that the United States wastes more money on health bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to the tens of millions of uninsured Americans.
The team, led by Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard, said a large sum of money might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style, single-payer health care system.
"The difference in the costs of health-care administration between the United States and Canada is clearly large and growing," the researchers said, questioning whether the $294.3 billion spent each year on U.S. health care administration is money well spent.
Here's an abstract from a New England Journal of Medicine article on the subject...
QUOTE
In 1987 health care administration cost between $96.8 billion and $120.4 billion in the United States, amounting to 19.3 to 24.1 percent of total spending on health care, or $400 to $497 per capita. In Canada, between 8.4 and 11.1 percent of health care spending ($117 to $156 per capita) was devoted to administration. Administrative costs in the United States increased 37 percent in real dollars between 1983 and 1987, whereas in Canada they declined. The proportion of health care spending consumed by administration is now at least 117 percent higher in the United States than in Canada and accounts for about half the total difference in health care spending between the two nations. If health care administration in the United States had been as efficient as in Canada, $69.0 billion to $83.2 billion would have been saved in 1987.
The conclusion of the the authors':
QUOTE
The administrative structure of the U.S. health care system is increasingly inefficient as compared with that of Canada's national health program. Recent health policies with the avowed goal of improving the efficiency of care have imposed substantial new bureaucratic costs and burdens.
I even managed to find some good information from a site that actually opposes a single payer system. Here:
QUOTE
Advocates of the Canadian system of national health insurance cite two principal benefits: (1) patients entering the health care system need produce only a national health insurance card in order to receive care, and (2) the administrative costs of the system are lower because the paperwork is reduced and other costs - such as marketing - are eliminated.
QUOTE
The quote I was responding to presumed that the shift to universal coverage would offer a savings in administrative costs. A savings so high, it would more than offset the expense of universal coverage.
Name me one thing that the government provides to its people where it does so at a cheaper cost than it was when privatized? Just the opposite is true in services across the board--they are privatized to save taxpayer money, and provide better service. If this is where you are pinning your hopes, not only will you almost surely be extremely disappointed, but you will never, ever get the vote of the right, without which the service will never pass.
Consider the following, from your quote:
QUOTE
Thirty-one cents of every dollar spent on health care in the United States goes to pay administrative costs — nearly double the rate in Canada, according to a new comparison that sees colossal bureaucratic waste in the American system.
This is obviously an aggregate number, showing the entire spectrum of health care in the US. Much (most?) of this is provided through Medicaid and Medicare, which is as close the UHC as you will find in the US. Therefore, this is actually indicating the futility of bureacratizing the system here, not the benefits.
QUOTE
Recent health policies with the avowed goal of improving the efficiency of care have imposed substantial new bureaucratic costs and burdens.
Exactly. So imposing UHC to further improve the efficiency will suddenly provide tremendous administrative savings? I am, to say the very least, extremely skeptical.
QUOTE
What expense are you referring to? In the U.S. system you are already paying for the insurance of other people.
Not really. What you are paying for is the LACK of insurance of other people. This is one area where there are savings to be had.
Put me down for a big fat NO.
My main concern isn't even beaurocracy, or cost. It is two things, quality, which has been discussed thoroughly, and most importantly, control.
Can you imagine the type of ridiculous busybody control that would result if the government had to pay for our health care? I'll bet anything that very quickly the government would wind up outlawing virtually everything harmful, under the guise of cutting costs. Smoking? Nope, its bad for you, why should we have to pay for your bad decisions? Drinking? Same. Not eating healthy? Same. Not exercising? Same. It's bad enough having the government tell people that they cannot do drugs or ride without seatbelts, and this is without UHC.
My main concern isn't even beaurocracy, or cost. It is two things, quality, which has been discussed thoroughly, and most importantly, control.
Can you imagine the type of ridiculous busybody control that would result if the government had to pay for our health care? I'll bet anything that very quickly the government would wind up outlawing virtually everything harmful, under the guise of cutting costs. Smoking? Nope, its bad for you, why should we have to pay for your bad decisions? Drinking? Same. Not eating healthy? Same. Not exercising? Same. It's bad enough having the government tell people that they cannot do drugs or ride without seatbelts, and this is without UHC.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 28 2004, 06:15 PM)
QUOTE
The quote I was responding to presumed that the shift to universal coverage would offer a savings in administrative costs. A savings so high, it would more than offset the expense of universal coverage.
Name me one thing that the government provides to its people where it does so at a cheaper cost than it was when privatized? Just the opposite is true in services across the board--they are privatized to save taxpayer money, and provide better service.
Medicare. We've mentioned this before. 4% of dollars in goes to admin, the rest to health care. Name me ONE insurance company that can make the same claim.
Actually, services aren't privatized to save taxpayers money; they're privatized to save CERTAIN taxpayers -- the ones who don't need the service -- money. Others end up paying more to make up the difference. It's the "I'm looking out for me only" method of society, which works in some instances where only a few people need the service, but not areas where everyone needs the service.
Part of the reason for this discrepency is the amount we pay our government employees -- the ones who aren't at the top of the food chain -- vs. the amount of long-term benefits they get after they retire. There's a serious imbalance there, with government employees making sub-par salary in exchange for long-term benefits if they stay a government employee for a long time. Those benefits don't show up as a line-item for the particular government program, so the numbers look a bit better than they would if it were a private/public company, since most companies don't offer benefits like the government's and they pay more.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 28 2004, 09:33 AM)
So, there would be no associated overhead costs involved in implementing and running universal healthcare? Methinks the GAO smoke ‘em peacepipes.
Methinks the GAO smoke ‘em peacepipes. It does not say no overhead costs it says less overhead costs. This makes perfect sense if you just step back for a minute and think about it. Lets even use a generalized example.
Process A
You have a service out there that people want. There are X number of ways to pay for that service. There are also X number of restrictions for each payee and these frequently conflict with the standards of other payees. Each Payee has X number of plans, all of which are different. The overall goal here is for the administrator of the Service to get money from a payee, but every single person that uses the service is a different case.
In other words you have a bureaucratic nightmare, and this is the way our health care system currently works. Every person that walks through the door into a medical facility is potentially a completely different case, or they might not even have insurance in the first place. The administration overhead for a hospital is very large. Once the claim leaves the hospital it goes to one of many insurance companies where they decide it they are going to actually pay your claim and in many cases they decide they won't even though everything the hospital, doctor and even phone reps for the insurance company told you said they would. This generates more paperwork and administration cost.
Process B
You have a service people want but there is only one payee. There is also only one set of rules and regulations governing the service so it is relatively easy to determine if the payee will pay. There is one process to get your money from the payee.
In other words we are talking about a complete streamlining of the system. Hospitals can hire fewer administrators or they can work fewer hours. All of the red tape and cost incurred with determining if something is covered or not is gone. The claims go to one place, where one group of people process the claims. There are standards in place at every level and there are simple binary choices in most cases.
Now, which would you say generates less administration cost Mrs. P? I guarantee you that Process B is going to generate less cost. Process B is Universal Health Care with a single payer (i.e. the government).
QUOTE(amf)
So if all that savings would come from having a single-payer system... what happens to all the companies -- like Blue Cross / Blue Shield, Aetna, etc. -- who provide health insurance services? What then for them and the employees handling all these claims? Layoffs? Shift them to work for the government? (oh, the Conservative commentators will LOVE that!)
As far as I'm concerned, we put them out of business in a phased approach over 10 years like Kucinich suggests. The people that want to remain in the industry can stay and get government jobs (which there would likely be plenty), the rest could go do something else.
I have absolutely no sympathy for allowing insurance companies to stay in business. Insurance companies are in business to make money, not to take care of you. They'll find anyway that they can to get money from you, from the system, anywhere they can find it. They can increase their premiums simply to obtain a little more profit and it isn't hard to say hmmm, well we are increasing this because of a risk factor in the population. They have complete and total power over the system and they do not have anything at heart except making money, their motives do not include anything so noble as keeping people healthy.
All those stories about people being denied treatment for cancer etc? That is because of insurance companies. They don't want to pay for treatment for someone that is poor and has a low level of coverage because that wouldn't please the share holders and the executives couldn't buy new BMW's that year. That simply wouldn't do.
Insurance companies need to go, they are the single biggest reason why healthcare is not affordable, go ask any medical professional. It should be a phased rollout to minimize impact to the economy, but the time for this industry pulling in the big bucks has passed.
QUOTE
Name me one thing that the government provides to its people where it does so at a cheaper cost than it was when privatized?
This question is impossible to answer since the United States hasn't nationalized any industries or markets in a long time, so comparative analysis is difficult. On the other hand...
QUOTE
Just the opposite is true in services across the board--they are privatized to save taxpayer money, and provide better service.
They are privatized to save money. Do you have any proof that this is accomplished, and that it does in fact result in better service. In the quote I included earlier, researchers found that private Nursing Care clinics had dramatically POORER service and conduct records. Of course, I would admit I'm wrong if you could prove that privatization in general improves quality and reduces cost.
Here in Ontario certain functions of government have been privatized (in whole or part) in recent years; such as water-testing, nursing homes, infrastructure maintenance, low-cost housing, etc. In each and every case there was has been a stark decline in quality, and the savings have been negligible or non-existant. In some cases, failed privatization attempts have forced government to reacquire previously privatized assets due to the overwhelming failure of the private sector to manage cheaply and efficiently.
QUOTE
Much (most?) of this is provided through Medicaid and Medicare, which is as close the UHC as you will find in the US.
There are several things wrong with this statement. For one, you are guessing; which makes for poor debate. More importantly, you cannot compare government programs in the U.S. to a UHC system because those programs still have to operate in the framework of a multiple-user system; exposing them to some (not all) of the administrative costs that private organizations demand.
QUOTE
Exactly. So imposing UHC to further improve the efficiency will suddenly provide tremendous administrative savings? I am, to say the very least, extremely skeptical.
This is dubious logic at best. Efficiency is lost when government tries to regulate an extremely fractured market; one that has a labrynthe relationship with government AND it's consumers. How on earth can you compare that to managing a SINGLE ENTITY, which is the whole point of a single-payer system.
QUOTE
Not really. What you are paying for is the LACK of insurance of other people. This is one area where there are savings to be had.
This is a poor understanding of the insurance industry. Every time someone sues their insurer, the costs are passed along to that company's entire customer base. Every time someone gets a $150,000 operation, the company pays for it out of their general income, which comes from the entire customer base. By amalgamating insurers those costs are defused over a much larger base, and are offset by efficiency savings (which you have only refuted by platitude and guesswork.)
Cube Jockey, as to your A vs. B scenarios, it is easily solved.
All patients must pay for medical care out of pocket and then file the paperwork themselves to be reimbursed by their insurers. This would make it so doctors are not in the business of filing paperwork, thereby reducing costs. If patients knew the actual burden of paperwork, then I believe we would see a change in our insurance system. Until then, it's out of sight, out of mind.
All patients must pay for medical care out of pocket and then file the paperwork themselves to be reimbursed by their insurers. This would make it so doctors are not in the business of filing paperwork, thereby reducing costs. If patients knew the actual burden of paperwork, then I believe we would see a change in our insurance system. Until then, it's out of sight, out of mind.
QUOTE(logophage @ Jul 28 2004, 04:51 PM)
Cube Jockey, as to your A vs. B scenarios, it is easily solved.
All patients must pay for medical care out of pocket and then file the paperwork themselves to be reimbursed by their insurers. This would make it so doctors are not in the business of filing paperwork, thereby reducing costs. If patients knew the actual burden of paperwork, then I believe we would see a change in our insurance system. Until then, it's out of sight, out of mind.
All patients must pay for medical care out of pocket and then file the paperwork themselves to be reimbursed by their insurers. This would make it so doctors are not in the business of filing paperwork, thereby reducing costs. If patients knew the actual burden of paperwork, then I believe we would see a change in our insurance system. Until then, it's out of sight, out of mind.
It solves one part of the problem, the hospital administration costs... maybe.
The part that it doesn't solve is the problem with insurance companies. Just to relate a personal anecdote here to illustrate my point:
A friend of mine was in his kitchen cleaning up a few months ago and he picked up a sharp kitchen knife the wrong way and cut his hand, it was deep enough that it cut his tendon too. He had to go to the emergency room, but being a responsible consumer he decided to call his healthcare company before he went to see a doctor to make sure he was covered.
When the rep answered the phone he asked a very simple question "Can you give me a doctor that is covered under my plan so that I can get my hand looked at?" The rep said sure, gave him a doctor and a phone number. He even went a step further (which I felt was unecessary) and called the doctor to ask if he was covered, the doctor said yes. So with that information he went and got his hand sewn up and was back home later that night.
Several weeks later he got a bill from the insurance company and he owed something ridiculous like $500 or so. Apparently the facility where the doctor fixed him up wasn't covered.
Now, this little anecdote is completely the fault of the insurance company, what reasonable person is going to know to ask - am I covered by this doctor? Ok, is this doctor in-network? ok, is the facility covered? ok, if the doctor has to take a break during surgery and buys a coke are you going to invalidate my coverage?
It is ridiculous, and this is the reason for all the adminsitrative cost. Simply making people file claims themselves doesn't solve the problem, the insurance companies themselves are the problem.
I wasn't arguing against any administration, I was arguing against absurd and unecessary administration.
I'm generally a fan of privatization, am fairly libertarian, and believe in the market.
I believe in these things because I'm a fan of efficiency.
I support Universal Health Care.
In my opinion most Libertarian policies won't work outside the classroom of Economics 101. No markets are free, the concept of a 'voluntary and free exchange of goods' only works in an ideal setting. Either the seller or the buyer knows something the other doesn't. One of them has the market advantage, every time.
Our healthcare system is inefficient because of the nature of the market. Providing health care shouldn't be a utility. Insuring for healthcare should be...the larger the pool if insureds, the lesser the risk for the individual. Cutting out profit, exhorbant salaries, redundant bureaucracy and marketing allows for a government run enterprise to operate at higher efficiencies. The trick is in retaining the efficiencies inspired by competition, and this requires excellent management...something not often found in government run programs.
With the proper measurement systems, doctors could be rewarded for superlative performance, rather than a fixed pay-for-procedure rate. Likewise, additional (private) insurance could offer more than the UHC system will.
The free market ideal for health insurance would work if hospitals would turn the sick and injured away from their doors, but they won't. Likewise, how do you force someone to pay for health insurance when they already have to choose between buying food and making next month's rent payment?
I would support a UHC that was relatively revenue neutral (perhaps by cutting other programs), moderately wide in scope (satisfactory to 90% of insureds), and retained some copays (to reduce frivolous use of the system).
As far as further government intervention, I would hope that some healthcare costs would be actuarially assigned to their sources, such as smoking, driving, drinking, gun violence, pollution, etc, and taxed to the extend they incur healthcare costs. These costs are not inconsequential. I would be brand-specific as much as possible...a $1500 deer rifle doesn't kill nearly as many people as a $150 .32 automatic, and a $100 Partagas cigar doesn't kill nearly as many people as a $3 pack of generic cigarettes.
I agree with the point about tort reform being one key to reducing costs...I don't oppose the idea of a written protocol to the tune of: "patient presents with signs & symptoms X, medical provider has option of treatment by N, M, O, or P."
Medicare has an overhead of 3%, or so they claim, however, much of that overhead is merely shifted to paperwork done by the healthcare provider. It's still more efficient than private insurance.
Bottom line is that our country's economy pays some ungodly figure for health insurance every year. For the most people this is in the form of insurance from some faceless HMO that the insured didn't have much or any say in choosing. For the same sum, we could cover everyone, returning more than we take out of the economy. If you believe in trickle down economics, you aught to believe in the positive economic effects of trickle up healthcare.
I believe in these things because I'm a fan of efficiency.
I support Universal Health Care.
In my opinion most Libertarian policies won't work outside the classroom of Economics 101. No markets are free, the concept of a 'voluntary and free exchange of goods' only works in an ideal setting. Either the seller or the buyer knows something the other doesn't. One of them has the market advantage, every time.
Our healthcare system is inefficient because of the nature of the market. Providing health care shouldn't be a utility. Insuring for healthcare should be...the larger the pool if insureds, the lesser the risk for the individual. Cutting out profit, exhorbant salaries, redundant bureaucracy and marketing allows for a government run enterprise to operate at higher efficiencies. The trick is in retaining the efficiencies inspired by competition, and this requires excellent management...something not often found in government run programs.
With the proper measurement systems, doctors could be rewarded for superlative performance, rather than a fixed pay-for-procedure rate. Likewise, additional (private) insurance could offer more than the UHC system will.
The free market ideal for health insurance would work if hospitals would turn the sick and injured away from their doors, but they won't. Likewise, how do you force someone to pay for health insurance when they already have to choose between buying food and making next month's rent payment?
I would support a UHC that was relatively revenue neutral (perhaps by cutting other programs), moderately wide in scope (satisfactory to 90% of insureds), and retained some copays (to reduce frivolous use of the system).
As far as further government intervention, I would hope that some healthcare costs would be actuarially assigned to their sources, such as smoking, driving, drinking, gun violence, pollution, etc, and taxed to the extend they incur healthcare costs. These costs are not inconsequential. I would be brand-specific as much as possible...a $1500 deer rifle doesn't kill nearly as many people as a $150 .32 automatic, and a $100 Partagas cigar doesn't kill nearly as many people as a $3 pack of generic cigarettes.
I agree with the point about tort reform being one key to reducing costs...I don't oppose the idea of a written protocol to the tune of: "patient presents with signs & symptoms X, medical provider has option of treatment by N, M, O, or P."
Medicare has an overhead of 3%, or so they claim, however, much of that overhead is merely shifted to paperwork done by the healthcare provider. It's still more efficient than private insurance.
Bottom line is that our country's economy pays some ungodly figure for health insurance every year. For the most people this is in the form of insurance from some faceless HMO that the insured didn't have much or any say in choosing. For the same sum, we could cover everyone, returning more than we take out of the economy. If you believe in trickle down economics, you aught to believe in the positive economic effects of trickle up healthcare.
Very interesting story, Cube Jockey. The reason I'm suggesting paying out of pocket and then filing for reimbursement is because there would be such a huge public outcry that things would have to change. I completely agree that the Byzantine, Kafka-esque bureacracy of insurance companies is profoundly disturbing. Anyone who's had the "pleasure" of dealing with them firsthand understands this.
It is clear to me that, as far as medical insurance goes, privatization has failed. It does not do what free-market advocates hope it would have done. This is not a knock on privatization (which has merit) but a knock on the hypothesis that privatization is the best solution to all problems. It has specifically failed with regard to medical care.
It is clear to me that, as far as medical insurance goes, privatization has failed. It does not do what free-market advocates hope it would have done. This is not a knock on privatization (which has merit) but a knock on the hypothesis that privatization is the best solution to all problems. It has specifically failed with regard to medical care.
A couple points I want to address:
1. CJ- All insurance companies have their customer service calls taped. I have never worked with one that didn't. So Cube as far as your friend he should be following the appeal procedure dictated by the policy he was covered under. I have had several situations where I was able to help facilitate coverage for an employee by simply calling myself and asking them to pull the tape. They review it and make a determination based on the "actual" conversation. Now with the HIPPA regulations the employer can not help so it is up to the employee or insured to follow the procedure themselves.
2. Part of the market problem we see is partially covered here. If the insured has to see the cost of care they may realize just how much money they are spending. This is true but I want to take it a step further, the majority of insured today are insured by the employer's. The employer is negotiating the premium and plan not the insured. A lot of these companies are self insured and therefore are only purchasing the administration and plan features from the insurance carrier. Premiums are getting more and more expensive and unless you are an extremely large organization your negotiating powers are severely undermined. The insured does not realize (until they go on Cobra) just how much their insurance "actually costs". One idea I had in the past was to replace remove the employer from the negotiating equation. The employer offers a benefit in the form of a tax free cash donation into something similar to a Medical Savings Account and the insured is then free to go shop for insurance, they pay their monthly premiums from their account, they can add their own money, tax free, to cover the difference. Their plans would be portable and follow them wherever they go. So in cases of unemployment they don't need to worry about COBRA as the employer is not "administering" the plan. Self employed and small businesses would not be at such a disadvantage because everyone is under the same condition when negotiating their rates. Insurance companies would have to come up with different methods for pricing but since they are not getting "guaranteed" groups of people through an employer they loose their own "safety net" of guaranteed customer's. Market conditions supply and demand would come into play and insurance companies would be forced to compete with a real market. The insured will have a realistic idea of what they are getting for their money too.
3. For the population that can't afford a plan, even under these conditions, then I don't see anything wrong with a basic needs plan that the government can be involved with. Each state can take their medicaid funding and negotiate coverage through an insurer. If the person who is on the plan can afford to slightly upgrade then let them. But everyone will have some sort of insurance the people who apply for coverage from the state would be required to prove that they can't afford it. If they don't pass the test well then it is their responsibility to go get a plan.
4. As stated before tort reform as to malpractice has to be addressed. We should be demanding that our rep's support this. If they don't well they might not have their jobs the next election! The reps work for us not the special interest groups, we need to remember this.
Finally, I am still on the fence about UHC but wanted to throw these ideas out there...
1. CJ- All insurance companies have their customer service calls taped. I have never worked with one that didn't. So Cube as far as your friend he should be following the appeal procedure dictated by the policy he was covered under. I have had several situations where I was able to help facilitate coverage for an employee by simply calling myself and asking them to pull the tape. They review it and make a determination based on the "actual" conversation. Now with the HIPPA regulations the employer can not help so it is up to the employee or insured to follow the procedure themselves.
2. Part of the market problem we see is partially covered here. If the insured has to see the cost of care they may realize just how much money they are spending. This is true but I want to take it a step further, the majority of insured today are insured by the employer's. The employer is negotiating the premium and plan not the insured. A lot of these companies are self insured and therefore are only purchasing the administration and plan features from the insurance carrier. Premiums are getting more and more expensive and unless you are an extremely large organization your negotiating powers are severely undermined. The insured does not realize (until they go on Cobra) just how much their insurance "actually costs". One idea I had in the past was to replace remove the employer from the negotiating equation. The employer offers a benefit in the form of a tax free cash donation into something similar to a Medical Savings Account and the insured is then free to go shop for insurance, they pay their monthly premiums from their account, they can add their own money, tax free, to cover the difference. Their plans would be portable and follow them wherever they go. So in cases of unemployment they don't need to worry about COBRA as the employer is not "administering" the plan. Self employed and small businesses would not be at such a disadvantage because everyone is under the same condition when negotiating their rates. Insurance companies would have to come up with different methods for pricing but since they are not getting "guaranteed" groups of people through an employer they loose their own "safety net" of guaranteed customer's. Market conditions supply and demand would come into play and insurance companies would be forced to compete with a real market. The insured will have a realistic idea of what they are getting for their money too.
3. For the population that can't afford a plan, even under these conditions, then I don't see anything wrong with a basic needs plan that the government can be involved with. Each state can take their medicaid funding and negotiate coverage through an insurer. If the person who is on the plan can afford to slightly upgrade then let them. But everyone will have some sort of insurance the people who apply for coverage from the state would be required to prove that they can't afford it. If they don't pass the test well then it is their responsibility to go get a plan.
4. As stated before tort reform as to malpractice has to be addressed. We should be demanding that our rep's support this. If they don't well they might not have their jobs the next election! The reps work for us not the special interest groups, we need to remember this.
Finally, I am still on the fence about UHC but wanted to throw these ideas out there...
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Jul 28 2004, 05:52 PM)
Name me one thing that the government provides to its people where it does so at a cheaper cost than it was when privatized?
Electricity and water. Thats what the whole CA energy crisis was about, deregulating and privatizing the electricity business, and what happened? Prices rose, even when it was written into the legislation that prices would drop 20%. (source: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast)
I am all for UHC, and the reasons and proof have already been provided. But just to add a little more info onto the table: http://www.who.int/en
Thats the WHO website, and while I was doing research last night (and based on previous research that Ive done before on AD...Way back when...Look in the Health and Medicine archives), it says the US spends about $5000 per capita for healthcare, compared with Finland ($1600) and the UK (Im going to say less than $2500) and all other first world countries, we spend the most per person while having one of the least efficient systems. The only thing the US can brag is that there isnt a waiting list. I bet alot of our expenses come from the fact that we dont think about "preventative" healthcare. The cost of the going to the doctor prevents us from catching things early, and therefore making costs rise.
Someone said there would be a problem of pricing certain medical procedures, and my answer (and France's!) is put a price cap on medical procedures, instead of making all things one set price.
I would also be for a no fault policy, as long as we had a Patients Bill Of Rights that layed out what was unacceptable behavior for a doctor.
QUOTE(kimpossible)
Thats the WHO website, and while I was doing research last night (and based on previous research that Ive done before on AD...Way back when...Look in the Health and Medicine archives), it says the US spends about $5000 per capita for healthcare, compared with Finland ($1600) and the UK (Im going to say less than $2500) and all other first world countries, we spend the most per person while having one of the least efficient systems. The only thing the US can brag is that there isnt a waiting list. I bet alot of our expenses come from the fact that we dont think about "preventative" healthcare. The cost of the going to the doctor prevents us from catching things early, and therefore making costs rise.
You raise a good point here. Back in 1982 my nursing class was taught the three approaches to patient care: primary (preventative), secondary (therapeutic), and tertiary (largely palliative) care. At that time, the nursing instructor told us the most effective patient care was primary. I wonder how long it will take before the legislators get together and figure that out.
Whenever an uninsured, poor person goes to the emergency room of a public hospital, the hospital passes on the costs of this person's care by raising the cost of the care to insurance companies, which in turn raise the premiums paid by those who are insured. In effect, we are already paying for the care of those who cannot afford it.
Universal health coverage would ensure that basic health care, most importantly preventative care, would be available to the entire population. The wealthy could still have their Botox injections, facelifts and tummy tucks; but the poor could have more immediate health problems treated/prevented.