The Time Has Come: Universal Health Insurance
Do you realize that the American health care system is rated behind that of France, Canada, and most other European countries in international surveys? On most measures of morbidity (rates of illness) and mortality (death) we are poorly compared to these health care programs.
As the Presidential campaign heats up, we are going to be hearing more and more about our health care system, especially from those candidates who are public microphones for the multi-million dollar health insurance industry. They want to scare us with the notion that a "single-payor" system will raise taxes and ruin America.
A single payor system is one in which an insurer negotiates payment for the costs of care for a group of insured individuals. These cost agreements are made with hospitals, clinics, and individual providers to take care of the group of insured. There is an understandable set of benefits, premiums to be paid, and co-pays for the insured. Those who can afford to may purchase additional, private coverage for an out-of-pocket cost that improves their benefit coverage. In case you haven't seen it coming yet, I am describing the US Medicare system. This system isn't perfect, but it could certainly form the basis for a model in which all Americans could have health insurance. The for-profit health insurance companies hate the suggestion of a single-payor system in the US. Can you guess why? I'd guess it's because it would derail their large profits once and for all.
There is no question that we can't continue the US health care system as it is; fewer and fewer individuals are going through medical school training because the excessive costs of this education are not repaid by their post-graduate incomes for many years. Fewer individuals are going to nursing school because our health care system is so emotionally and physically taxing that the rewards of this "service" profession no longer match the demands. One of the common threads to discussions among those leaving the health care professions are the daily demands of this "broken" system.
Many attribute this failure to the growing needs of individuals without health insurance. As a whole, the uninsured have more chronic illnesses and are sicker than those with insurance, because they receive no preventative health care services and disease prevention education. As the lack of health insurance continues to spread, hospitals, clinics, and individual health care providers are faced with caring for increasingly larger numbers of seriously ill individuals who have no way to pay for their care. This reduction in reimbursement means cost-cutting measures such as fewer nurses and physicians-in-training at the bedside, and in hospital closures. In the last 10 years there has been a net loss of 425 hospital emergency departments while the number of ED visits has increased by 2 million annually.
There are currently more than 43 million people who have no health insurance, and 50 million more individuals whose insurance isn't adequate to meet their health care needs. The ranks of the uninsured continue to grow, and are expected to rise by another 10 million within 5 years.
Opponents of a national health insurance system say that it will dramatically raise taxes to insure everyone in the US, yet it is already costing us billions of dollars paying for the costs of people who receive inadequate and inappropriate health care in the emergency room for "free." The well-respected French health care system is very similar to our Medicare, and they spend approximately 11% of the gross domestic product (GDP) money annually to insure all their countrymen. By contrast in the US we spend approximately 15% of our GDP to insure a portion of our population. It is estimated by Physicians For a National Health Program that a single-payor system will save us more than $150 billion dollars in reduced paperwork and another $50 billion in savings will be realized in the bulk-purchasing of medications during its first year of existence. Costs will be reduced to employers who now spend about 8.5% of their payroll cost on health insurance premiums to the private sector. Instead all employers will pay a lesser amount (expected to be about 3.3% of payroll) and all workers will have insurance.
The current proposal for national health insurance recommends coverage for all medically necessary care, including primary prevention services, hospitalization, and outpatient care, emergency room visits, prescription medications, medical equipment, nursing home care, mental health services, dental and eye care, chiropractic manipulation, and substance abuse treatment. Individuals will have the right to choose their health care providers, hospitals, and long-term care facilities. The proposal recommends that we spend 15 years converting to a system of national health insurance, during which hospitals and providers will contract to provide services to the insured based on both fees-for-service and global budgets to cover their costs. Although their "gravy-train" will be gone, there is even a place in the new system for the current insurance companies; if they want a slice of the pie they can join the national insurance organization as a administrator of the program.
Health insurance should be the right of all individuals. We owe it to the state of our nation to reduce national health care costs by eliminating health care disparities. This will improve the health of all citizens, and help to level the playing field for all parties in the health care system, patients, and providers alike.
Laurie
For more information:
Related Topics: Technorati Tags: universal health insurance, single payor, national health insurance, health and wellness
As the Presidential campaign heats up, we are going to be hearing more and more about our health care system, especially from those candidates who are public microphones for the multi-million dollar health insurance industry. They want to scare us with the notion that a "single-payor" system will raise taxes and ruin America.
A single payor system is one in which an insurer negotiates payment for the costs of care for a group of insured individuals. These cost agreements are made with hospitals, clinics, and individual providers to take care of the group of insured. There is an understandable set of benefits, premiums to be paid, and co-pays for the insured. Those who can afford to may purchase additional, private coverage for an out-of-pocket cost that improves their benefit coverage. In case you haven't seen it coming yet, I am describing the US Medicare system. This system isn't perfect, but it could certainly form the basis for a model in which all Americans could have health insurance. The for-profit health insurance companies hate the suggestion of a single-payor system in the US. Can you guess why? I'd guess it's because it would derail their large profits once and for all.
There is no question that we can't continue the US health care system as it is; fewer and fewer individuals are going through medical school training because the excessive costs of this education are not repaid by their post-graduate incomes for many years. Fewer individuals are going to nursing school because our health care system is so emotionally and physically taxing that the rewards of this "service" profession no longer match the demands. One of the common threads to discussions among those leaving the health care professions are the daily demands of this "broken" system.
Many attribute this failure to the growing needs of individuals without health insurance. As a whole, the uninsured have more chronic illnesses and are sicker than those with insurance, because they receive no preventative health care services and disease prevention education. As the lack of health insurance continues to spread, hospitals, clinics, and individual health care providers are faced with caring for increasingly larger numbers of seriously ill individuals who have no way to pay for their care. This reduction in reimbursement means cost-cutting measures such as fewer nurses and physicians-in-training at the bedside, and in hospital closures. In the last 10 years there has been a net loss of 425 hospital emergency departments while the number of ED visits has increased by 2 million annually.
There are currently more than 43 million people who have no health insurance, and 50 million more individuals whose insurance isn't adequate to meet their health care needs. The ranks of the uninsured continue to grow, and are expected to rise by another 10 million within 5 years.
Opponents of a national health insurance system say that it will dramatically raise taxes to insure everyone in the US, yet it is already costing us billions of dollars paying for the costs of people who receive inadequate and inappropriate health care in the emergency room for "free." The well-respected French health care system is very similar to our Medicare, and they spend approximately 11% of the gross domestic product (GDP) money annually to insure all their countrymen. By contrast in the US we spend approximately 15% of our GDP to insure a portion of our population. It is estimated by Physicians For a National Health Program that a single-payor system will save us more than $150 billion dollars in reduced paperwork and another $50 billion in savings will be realized in the bulk-purchasing of medications during its first year of existence. Costs will be reduced to employers who now spend about 8.5% of their payroll cost on health insurance premiums to the private sector. Instead all employers will pay a lesser amount (expected to be about 3.3% of payroll) and all workers will have insurance.
The current proposal for national health insurance recommends coverage for all medically necessary care, including primary prevention services, hospitalization, and outpatient care, emergency room visits, prescription medications, medical equipment, nursing home care, mental health services, dental and eye care, chiropractic manipulation, and substance abuse treatment. Individuals will have the right to choose their health care providers, hospitals, and long-term care facilities. The proposal recommends that we spend 15 years converting to a system of national health insurance, during which hospitals and providers will contract to provide services to the insured based on both fees-for-service and global budgets to cover their costs. Although their "gravy-train" will be gone, there is even a place in the new system for the current insurance companies; if they want a slice of the pie they can join the national insurance organization as a administrator of the program.
Health insurance should be the right of all individuals. We owe it to the state of our nation to reduce national health care costs by eliminating health care disparities. This will improve the health of all citizens, and help to level the playing field for all parties in the health care system, patients, and providers alike.
Laurie
For more information:
- National Coalition on Health Care
- The United States National Health Insurance Act, H.R. 676("Expanded & Improved Medicare For All") Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan
- The Case For Universal Health Care in the US (Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care)
- The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation: Health Policy, Media Resources, Public Policy
- Guaranteed Healthcare (California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee)
Related Topics: Technorati Tags: universal health insurance, single payor, national health insurance, health and wellness
47 Comments:
...but for the grace of God, go I.
This issue has had me passionate for awhile, but not as much as this past week, when my 20-something son who served his four years in the military had a sudden and extreme flare with his wisdom teeth. Now I know that dental isn't medical, but here's the thing: He worked in door-to-door sales over the summer and in the process was attacked by a homeowner's dog, leaving a three-inch gash in his leg.
It cost him $1500 (more than he cleared) to pay for the treatment, leaving him completely broke and unable to pay a dentist. Because he's a college student but over the top age for coverage on my health plan, and because employers don't want to hire college students his age as full time employees with benefits, he now has no job, no home and a mouthful of pain.
This is a bright, motivated veteran. He gets a bare minimum of medical care through the VA, but not dental. If this is how it is now, what the heck will we do when the Iraq vets come home with really serious medical issues?
I disagree with one thing in your post. You say that health insurance is a right. On that I disagree. I think health CARE is a right, and one that needs to be accessible to everyone, not just targeted sectors of our population (employed people, poor people, children).
Over 1/3rd of the bankruptcies declared in California last year were the result of insurmountable medical expenses. Those bankruptcies cost everyone -- the system, the taxpayers, the providers -- everyone.
We have to find a way open up the pathway to receiving health care, and at the same time, we need to start stressing wellness. In this country, it's just wrong that anyone would go without at least having a way to access health care in an emergency. It's just wrong.
Ask yourself a few questions. Do you really want socialized medicine? Think about it, expensive yes, but at least you can get it. Do you really want government to decide when and if you can get treatment? Not sure? Check this website out from Canada, and ask yourself- why are their citizens PAYING to have medical treatment in the US?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U
How many advances come out of health care systems that are socialized? Do you see people coming to the US for advanced treatments or vice-versa? It seems that real problem is that we are allowing other nations a free ride while we, as a nation, suffer. Socialized medicine will stifle medical advances. We are the only ones making these advances. Once it stops here, there will be no more.
Maybe it's time to step back and decide what baseline should be in place before we start talking 'advances'. Frankly, I don't really care about advances when 12-year olds are dying from a tooth infection.
What good are advances if no one can pay for them? When did we decide that advances matter more than providing basic care on a basis that everyone can afford?
I have been fortunate enough to have access to health insurance all of my life, but when I became self-employed, it was too expensive. I was paying nearly $1000/month to cover a family of 4. So I had to get another job for the benefits, which limited the growth I could work toward in my business.
You say universal coverage is expensive and I say the heck with that, it's expensive now. By bringing coverage in to the younger group we at least have a broader coverage base and that counts for something.
I should not lose my home because I had to pay medical bills that I couldn't get insurance to cover.
Talk to me about 'advances' and 'expenses' after the CEOs of these so-called non-profit health insurance companies are paid reasonable salaries instead of multi-million dollar packages annually.
Feh.
DITO, DOTTO, DITTO............GO SEE THE MOVIE "SICKO" AND FEEL ASHAMED OF OUR COUNTRY'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM........EVEN IF MR. MOORE TOOK A LITTLE LITTERARY LICENSE...HE DIDN'T ON THE "WHOLE" MOVIE!!!!
I am totally disgusted with health care in the U.S. My husband covers me and himself and every time he turns around, the provider changes their coverage, offers new "choices" which are no choices at all. You might as well tie up your running shoes because you no longer can go to 1 doctor anymore. They all have you running to this specialist, and that specialist, for this test and that test and all along people's wages are not increasing but everything else has. Depending on which money strapped state you live in, it's coming down to keeping the lights on and buying food, or paying for health care. Somethings' gotta give.
I'm fortunate that my union has negotiated company funded health, dental and vision for our employees. I'm not sure what the coverage is like, as I have not been able to use it yet but any coverage is better than no coverage.
I agree that without profit, there would be fewer advances. However, on the other side, there should be no reason why someone should be denied services because their insurance is not accepted at a particular location.
It seems silly to me that with as much money as the US has, we have people dying from completely curable ailments simply because they did not have the money available to be treated.
I understand that medical school is an expensive and time consuming institution but do doctors really have to take it out on their patients with increased healthcare costs and selective acceptance of health insurance?
I don't know what the answer is, but thank God for medicare and the supplementals that help. Altho we may be paying a large amt. still for surgery, from our own pockets, think of what it would be and is for those with no insurance.
I do have a friend in Canada and she waited 14 hours in the e.r. for a doctor to see her daughter. Do we want that?
Dental is a big issue too, no ins. for many with extremely high costs from our own pockets.
What happens in the large universities that the administration has upped the amount of deductible for a family that they can't afford to visit a doctor often as needed.? Those who receive medicaid have everything paid for, but for the disgrace of needing it, it works. Military retirees can go to the bases or off and with Tricare of $400+ per year for the whole family, or $200+ for a single retiree, and that to me is about the best deal I've seen in the U.S., other than the wealty, rich and famous who don't give a hoot about the poor and needy. Our rich leaders need to start acting on our medical needs instead of having opened the border gates to create more health care issues in this country.!!
So...let's talk about wait times. The commenter above me says she had a friend who waited 14 hours in the ER for treatment.
My 69-year old mother fell off her balcony and fractured 3 vertebrae in her back, and also had a nasty gash in her head.
She waited 8 hours in the ER for treatment, and finally went home because she couldn't stand sitting any longer.
A week later she was seen by an orthopedist who told her that the gash was not worth stitching at that point.
This happened in the good ole' USA and she has health insurance supplementing her Medicare coverage. The 'wait time' threat is already here, only people who aren't fortunate enough to have insurance and get themselves to a specialist are doomed to sit in that waiting room until someone will treat them, because ERs are usually the only place they can hope to get any kind of treatment.
Because of the delay in my mother's diagnosis and treatment, she had to wear a body cast for four months and use a walker. That might have been preventable with more rapid treatment.
The system is broken. It's useless to defend the one we have. A better way to use our time is to figure out how to fix it so that people don't die from stupid diseases that are entirely preventable, a baseline level of healthcare is available to everyone on a reasonable basis, and with enough incentives that people will want to become health professionals.
It's hard to think about blaming the doctors -- they have a full plate. Someone commented about their pay, but the fact is that by the time they're done taking care of all the expenses associated with being a doctor, they're not all that well off.
On the other hand ,there are some astronomical figures being made by insurance companies, pharmas, and 3rd party deliverers. That's where I'd start reforming things.
Universal Health Insurance is wonderful way for insurance companies to get rich with virtually no oversight. Universal Health Care is pretty much what we have now. The only problem with health care in the US is the insurance companies and their pricing - allowing prices to skyrocket. There is nothing wrong with the healthcare field itself and this problem did not exist until government started to regulate the industry.
...and please stop this nonsense spreading stories about people dying because they were denied medical care. This is an outright lie.
There needs to be a better way, my supplemental insurace requires me to pay $4000.00 out of pocket before they pay anything. I expect this to increase next year, we need Health Care Reform and soon.
No question that the US health care system is jacked up. However, do you really want the government to be in charge of your health? I don't. Name one efficient gov't program. Do more investigating into the socialized health care in other countries. You think there is a shortage of Doctors now, just watch the supply dry up when they are forced to work for the govt. Ridiculous regulations and no incentive to be better than any other DR. will ruin the profession. We do not have a "right" to health care. If we did then someone would have to provide it to us for free.
Another point is the fact that the govt would be able to tell you how to live your life even more, since they are paying for your health care. No drinking, smoking, eating fast food, mandatory exercise, etc. Be careful what you ask for. Our insurance companies are a mess, costs for health services are unbearable, but there is a better solution than socialized health care.
Shane,
When SiCKO was first released I did a lot of research around other countries' socialized health care programs, mostly because I wasn't convinced anything similar could be implemented here. They all have problems and they're all wrestling with the same issues -- high cost of pharmaceuticals, wait times, etc.
So are we? But why does this have to be an either/or conversation? Even though Laurie is advocating a universal system, I'm not sure that's the best place to start.
It seems to me that the place to start is a complete removal of the most expensive and high-profit organizations from the halls of Congress. De-fang the insurance and pharma lobbies first along with the AMA. Take the medicine out of politics (you'll always have politics in medicine, but it doesn't have to live on Capitol Hill).
Then let the legislators and analysts do a reasonable and realistic assessment of our current structure, where it can be improved, and where it excels.
This is America. Why not innovate rather than give in to the notion that we have to live with it as it is or adopt something that already isn't working very well for senior citizens?
Dump 300 MILLION people into any one of those countries with socialized health care, and see how efficient, cost effective and happy everyone is. It "works" in France, Cuba, Canada becuase they have about 30 million citizens (give or take). And Englands healthcare system is a mess.
Yes there are major problems with US health care. Universal healthcare will not change one factor: A lot of people just don't want to take care of themselves, and will still use the ER as the family doctor. Many health plans cover preventive care UP FRONT, yet so many people I know just don't bother with their annual physical - they don't need it, they feel fine, blah blah.
If people took responsibility for their own health, this healthcare mess would be a lot different.
And if Universal Healthcare does become reality, I really hope that the government doesn't cover the idiots that decide to blast their brains out on illegal drugs, then mess them selves up in a car wreck, accident, overdose, etc. I really don't know see why treatment resulting from ILLEGAL substances should be paid by taxpayers.
Some coverage is better than no coverage, so I certainly can't afford a private plan on my own or through "Healthy New York" who promises to cover all individuals fairly. I work, so I can't go on Medicaid; I'm 30 yrs old, and (thankfully) have no disability, so Medicare is out of the question, and I make too much money to be covered by a Health Plus program!!! - Where is the fairness in this? - I work full time to keep a roof over my childrens heads and food on their table, but can't afford insure myself. (the kids have coverage through their fathers union.) So, God forbid, I get sick, I won't be able to pay the bills or afford a dr's care in the first place. Forget about well-checks... can't do that either. My family medical history is no clean slate with Cancer and Heart disease... So when I get sick, who's going to pay my bills? OR WILL I BE DENIED TREATMENT ALL TOGETHER FOR THE INABILITY TO PAY FOR SERVICES!!!??TAKE A GUESS!!! Dr's don't want to treat anyone who can't pay!!
** Addendum to previous post...
- I can not afford my employers coverage either!
Our son lives in Australia. They have a base of public health care, from the government for everyone. No "For Profit Companies" involved. They do not have to pay for 2 office workers for every health care provider like we do in the U.S., no for profit company dividends, no for profit executive salaries.
Not completely true, if someone earns enough then they can either pay into the system or get private health insurance which costs a fraction of U.S. How is the care? He's a surfer and has had his share of health care needs, with very good results. Don't want to wait in the queue for a procedure in the public hospital? The private one is across the street.
Can we do this in the U.S.? No way, the Insurance Companies have too many lobbyists in Washington. By the way, Australia's budget is balanced....
Yep, we need universal healthcare because we don't have it now. If you break your arm and don't have health insurance your arm is just going to fall off eventually due to lack of treatment. And oh, if you have a heart attack, don't worry, no ambulence will come and you won't go to an ER, you'll get to die at home where most of us want to go.
Seriously, American healthcare is expensive and difficult for all to get for three simple reasons. When we can get "passionate" about these non-sexy issues, instead of waving our arms and stomping our emotional feet screaming "WE NEED HEALTHCARE FOR ALL" even though we already have that then we have a chance to bring the cost down, the quality up and expand overall access.
The first reason healthcare is expensive is that there is no universal set of coding and information sharring. Fix this, and any study shows, that reduces the cost of healthcare a minimum of 10% across the board and likely 30%. A simple panel comprised of the big insurers, Medicare, a few major hospital chains, NAIC, some citizens and doctors, much like in the technology fields, could set some standards that all follow.
Second, and this won't be popular for populists until the end of the paragraph, eliminate Medicaid. It is an inefficiently run abused absurd system. Open Medicare up for enrollment by all, but with a sliding scale premium that reaches full price at the median income. Not only do we get rid of a failed expensive system, we get a large competitor to the private insurers that sets a virtual price ceiling without having to legislate it. This improves effienciency for all.
Third, claims processing and care approval is a farce. Many providers file bogus claim amounts and many insurers ignore legit claims until the claiment gives up. There should be a "Sarbanes-Oxley" of sorts to regulate and set punishments for fraud and negligence. Many Americans have had their credit rating and ability to take care of their family hurt due the providers and insurers hanging them out to dry on care costs. It's time to put an abrubt end to that practice. If you haven't seen "Rainmaker" the movie, see it. That sort of thing in institutionalized across the board in more complex ways and needs to stop.
Beav at www.RealWisconsinNews.com
Laurie:
Great post. I just posted on "Mad About Medicine" the CEO Compensation of 23 insurance and drug company executives. The profits in healthcare are astounding.
http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/
Single payor system is, unfortunately, a negative buzz word as it implies that there will be a forced bondage in the system. This does not have to be. The Canadian System is terrible because the government is controlling clinical decision making leading to delays in treatment. I know it seems good to have free healthcare but no reasonable person would exchange access for cost.
We often confuse the payment/financial aspects of medical care with the control of clinical decision making which for insurance companies is only about saving money.
Currently Medicare has good and bad points. The good points are that the Medicare system does not require precertification and there are no delays in access to care. The negative part is that all physicians in this country are forced to take Medicare or only charge 15% above allowable rates. Maybe this is not so bad actually- depends on which side you are looking at. Therefore on the surface Medicare is superior to the Canadian system since it is a financial relationship and not politicians making access and guideline decisions.
The question is this: Why are politicians making these decisions about heathcare and not physician and patient groups?
Either way, again, excellent post.
Doctor K
WebMD Mad About Medicine
http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/
Privilege not a right, that’s what medical insurance is. When illegals can get access to medical care, but working Americans can not, that is an atrocity. For those concerned about the real facts about what this hoax of socialized insurance is , follow the money trail.
For the lady with the son who needs dental care, he needs to get Medical. I have 3 foster children who all receive Medical - trust me. I was at the dentist office with the children, and we were the only Americans in the office - all of the other patients were adults. Do you understand this? All of them were Medical recipients and no one was even American.Futher, most of the office staff did not speak English - not one of them even spoke English as a first language. The doctor was very good, excellent schooling - all of his patients have Medical. Exploit the system - it was set up for people like your son; use it. The illegals are. Do a little research. We give Medical to illegals and non-Americans! - don't take my word for it - use your internet skills and do the reseach. And, they get social security - yes, no lie. People who never contributed a penny, who broke into this country, are now picking your social security pockets.
There is no need to further tax people into submission. I pay 33% taxes - that pays for the Medical system to cover for your son. It’s my intention to contribute to the systems that supports people like your son. First off, an American - secondly, a Veteran. He is first in line. We should take care of those that take care of this country and those that have contributed.
This tax system is rot with fraud. It makes me sick to witness “educated” citizens fall for this pity proposal about rights to insurance. Turn your brains on and close you’re wallets. This is nothing more than a tax scheme.
A few comments please:
Healthcare is neither a privilage nor a right. It is not a buzz word at all. It is a complex relationship between the doctor the patient and disease that unformtunately has been invaded by politicians and insurers that do not mean well for the patients.
IF, politicially we would need to categorize healthcare, think of it more like a utility- like electricity or water utilities. I modern developed nations, when we buy a house we sort of expect that there will be electricity in the house with running water. There isn't really a "right" to these but rather an appropriate expectaion by choosing to live in a cosiety that, thanks to the hard work and morals of those before us, this is available to us. In that sense it really is closer to a privilage but as it is open to ALL citizens consider it more a a basic supply of living here and agreeing to the rules of the community.
Utilities have two important rules: You have to pay for the utility service and you don't steal the electricity that you buy and siphon off to a neighbor who is not paying.
In the same sense, if healthcare was more like a utility, then the same rules apply. This means that immigrants who are here legally can fit these rules. In the government would like to offer immigrants who are here legally Medicid, Medicare, or something else then that is the choice of the people we vote in. Immigrant here illegally, can't could only get electricity if they pay for it. That solves your illegal immigrant issue.
Doctor K
WebMD Mad About Medicine
http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/
Gee I wonder when the next "free" gimmie will be after we get universal healthcare? Free sounds great to those that don't pay for it doesn't it? You demonize the people that make more then you do so you justify taking from them. This is not a democracy we live in, it is a republic. A true democracy is mob rule and our founding fathers were scared to death of that and created what we have now. We have those with their hands out demanding entitlements. The politicians pander to them to buy votes. Mark my words if you get your universal healthcare the system will colapse in short order. You know how they will fix it? More taxes on a scale you cannot fathom. Our system while not perfect is far from broken. Sicko is fraught with slight of hand and anyone that thinks Canada or other countries have it better healthcare wise should really do their homework. Canada, France and England are all disasters at some level and I don't mean little disasters either. Canadians flock to the USA for treatment, England has a private sector for those that can afford and don't want to wait 5 years to get that gallbladder removed, and France? Let that country be an abject lesson in how not to do things!
I don't have the answer, but universal healthcare and higher taxes are not it. Any good CEO will tell you you don't throw money at a problem to fix it and that is what our government would do, our money, taxes. Remember it is not their money they spend, it is OURS and they don't do a very good job do they? Hell they can't even run the freaking post office correctly and you want them to run your health coverage!!! Think of the post office as a preview of things to come folks...just another government employee we will be complaining about.
Sorry postal people...but that is why I email.
I don't blame the doctors for the cost of healthcare. I know most of it is not their fault. I don't know if it was mentioned previously but I work for an insurance company. The providers that we have working for us(usually) make less being paid by us than they do being paid by an individual.
The only reason for really being a provider is the guarantee of new patients.
While it sounded harsh on the doctors, it was really directed more to third parties in charge of your benefits. The thing to realize, though, is that health insurance is just like any other insurance -
When you take out car insurance, the insurance company is hoping that you don't get in an accident and every single one of them reward you for being a dafe driver with lower premiums.
Insurance companies hope that you never need to use them and can cost less depending on your lifestyle. For example, if you take out a private policy as a smoker through an insurance company, you will usually have higher premiums associated with that policy because your lifestyle lends itself to illness.
Mostly, the cost of the system and the high costs associated with it are due to fraud and hypochondriacs on Medicare/Medicaid that swear they're going into cardiac arrest everytime they pass gas and book it to the ER to waste time after they've already paid the deductible for the year.
I have some cousins that outright abuse the system for narcotics to abuse as recreational drugs. Do I think it's right? Absolutely not. Does anyone do anything about it? No. As long as the system is there to abuse, abuse it they shall. The worst part is, I know they're not the only ones that have gotten a prescription for Vicodin that was covered by some government funded healthcare.
It sickens me how easily abused the current system is.
How many people choose to have a fancy car with a large payment yet won't budget to buy their own health insurance?
How many people think insurance means you pay nothing or very little out of pocket?
How many people think the government should provide their health care?
If the government pays for it it means WE pay for it - and the government is not cheap when they oversee a program.
I have family in the UK - there, if you are not an important member of society or have something to offer (special skills/ training) then you are cheaper if they let you die. Waiting lists for simple procedures are long and your health will decline rapidly before you are treated.
Unfounded lawsuits and ridiculously high monetary awards have to be reformed as well as changing the notion that "someone else" pays for your health care. Budget for your own coverage instead of expecting someone else to pay for it - maybe you should choose a vehicle that has lower payments so you can afford insurance. And maybe you will have to choose a plan that requires a copay to find one you can afford.
I have.
Hey anonymous @12:57 am:
I'd love to drive a nice car, but by the time I'm done paying my $350 per month for the meds that my child needs because they are not covered by the insurance that I pay $450/month for and my employer adds another $300 for, there's no money in the budget for anything other than an 18-year old Honda with 194,000 miles on it.
Don't assume that everyone in the system is gaming it or out blowing their paycheck on big expensive cars because they're not. It's the middle class folks who want to own a home, maybe have a small business (and shell out 16% of their income for their Social Security/Medicare as opposed to employees who shell out only half that...), or raise a couple of kids in a modest fashion...those are the ones who are screwed on a daily basis by the companies who rake in enough money to pay their CEOs outrageous amounts of money.
Or the two-income couple who is unfortunate enough for one of them to have asthma and need inhalers to manage it -- a LIFE and DEATH situation not controllable with simple wellness measures -- who gets to choose between paying for the inhalers or paying the house payment-- they're not gaming the system either.
The first example is me. The second example is one of my friends. Probably the most tragic example is the family whose college-age son ended up living out of his car because he had undiagnosed bipolar disorder and once it was diagnosed, it was too late for his parents to do anything but hope he would cycle to a point where they could involuntarily commit him and have MediCal handle the costs. That's criminal, and more importantly, dangerous not only to him but to others.
So sit in your ivory tower and point the finger at those conspicuous consumers who are not the problem if you must, but the real problem is the sanctimonious "me-mongers" who think they get to live in a society but not contribute to it.
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have”. Barry Goldwater, Libertarian
For example, in communist China abortion is mandatory beyond the first child. Pro-choice? Self-determination? Forget it. The Chinese gov’t dictates the fate of its citizens.
Notice how the author frames the discussion by asserting health care as a right. It then follows that government undertake some action to secure your rights, a primary role of gov't. Health is not a right, nor should it be. Clearly, the author is a communist.
As for myself, I’m a registered independent. Anyone who gives blind loyalty to a political party is a sucker. Clinton, Romney, Obama, Thompson and the rest of the Hee-Haw gang don’t care about health care, abortion or anything else. They’re going to talk a good game to get you to vote for them. Once in office, they’ll use the tax system to embezzle your hard earned money to give to those who funded their campaigns.
Let’s examine the health care systems of other countries. Less than a year ago, the Wall Street Journal (an excellent source of info, particularly compared to CNN, Fox and even WebMD – there’s no profit in chasing political spin) reported that the Canadian legislature tried to pass a law making it mandatory that Canadians enroll in the state sponsored health care system. The Canadian superior court overruled that legislation citing multiple incidents where people died waiting for medical attention and medication. The Canadian state sponsored health system is so inefficient that the superior court ruled against it.
What about Germany & France? The author asserts that socialized health care would not affect the US economy. Hmmm, Germany and France both suffer unemployment rates and inflation rates twice that of the US. Their tax rates are three times that in the US. Their economic growth rates are a little more than half of the US economic growth rate. The reason for this abysmal economic performance can be stated in one word: socialism.
Just to put things in perspective, the US has the largest economy in the world (the real reason for anti-American sentiment), followed by Japan and Germany (thanks to the Marshall Plan).
Have any of you been to Europe? Their products, e.g. toothpaste, shampoo, cereal, etc SUCK compared to US products - not even close.
Ok, enough criticism, here’s one solution. I enroll in a high deductible health plan (HDHP) combined with a Health Savings Account (HSA). Per year, I pay about $1,300 for individual health insurance via my HDHP. However, $220 pays for my premium and $1,080 goes into my HSA (that's my money). My annual deductible is $1,500. Preventive care, e.g. annual physical exams and tests are covered in full. I can invest the HSA money in mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc. If I use it for medical expenses, there’s no taxable event (taxes and a penalty are applied for non-medical expenses). After the age of 65, it’s treated like a conventional IRA.
There have been occasions when I've needed medical attention. Given that my annual deductible is $1,500 I shopped around for testing labs, etc. I shopped for medical services just like I shopped for a real estate agent, automobile, computer, etc. Currently, my HSA account is valued around $10,000 invested primarily in a Vanguard mutual fund.
I AM RESPONSIBLE for managing my own assets, health, etc. Toward that end, I also exercise daily, watch what I eat and get enough sleep – three primary factors to good health. Consider Hurricane Katrina. All levels of gov’t: city, state and federal blew it and then blamed each other. Why would I want those same entities to be responsible for my health care (not to mention social security)?
Need another example why gov’t should stay out of this? In the 1950’s President Eisenhower proposed a national health plan. If an individual or family incurred medical costs exceeding 10% of their gross annual income, the federal gov’t would cover the rest, thereby providing catastrophic medical coverage (mitigating the odds of having to file bankruptcy due to medical expenses). That is the intent of any type of insurance. Insurance was never intended to be a form of third party welfare.
President Eisenhower’s plan was defeated in Congress. Labor unions bribed their political puppets to defeat the measure because it deprived the unions of an incentive for people to join them (and pay union dues, of course, that keeps the union bosses driving their Caddilacs).
Gov’t involvement is a double-edged sword. Sure CEO’s can be crooks. But Bernie Ebbers will die in prison for what he did. In contrast, Ted Kennedy committed manslaughter and John McCain committed fraud. They’re still at large.
Subject health care to free market competition just like any other commerical entitiy and quality will improve and costs will lower. In addition, make the premiums tax deductible so that individuals enjoy the same incentives and company insurance plans.
How much did a computer cost 10 years ago, compared to today? How many companies produced computers compared to today (more competition).
Paul
Baltimore, MD
There are very few "free markets" here in the US.
The telecommunications industry has become the domain of two companies, largely because of the corporate welfare they've received and the power of their lobby. Telecommunications is no 'free market'.
How about taking the focus of the idea of government-supplied healthcare and putting it on the idea of creating a level playing field for everyone? Why should access to healthcare be determined by who has the most in the bank?
Perhaps it's time to end the corporate privileges extended to insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and 3rd-party providers and start there.
Wal-Mart came the closest to any kind of disruption when it introduced the $4 medications last year. Other pharmacies followed, but it's completely limited by what medications can be manufactured as generics, etc.
Patent restrictions need to be limited, or a requirement for tiered-pricing on medications that are necessary. (Asthma inhalers come to mind here).
It's not as simple as saying "let the market deal with it", because the markets are currently controlled and manipulated by a select few with Congressional blessings.
Thanks for all the comments; it's nice to know that you're reading and thinking, even if we disagree. Laurie
My husband had a heart attack and a triple bypass in June 2007. He is, or was a druck driver, they told him he would never drive again. He had health insurance that only covered very little and it stopped on July 31 2007. He has filed Social Security disability. Well now we have to wait for 120 days and are losing everything we own. We are living in a travel trailer that his sister owns. We are in Michigan and they have denied him state help, because he isn't going to be disabled for a full year. Even though they told him he would never drive again, he is 51 yrs old. I don't understand the system that won't help when people really need it and give it to the ones that play the system by lying and we have told the truth to everything. Oh and we didn't even get a get well card from his company.
My husband had a heart attack and a triple bypass in June 2007. He is, or was a druck driver, they told him he would never drive again. He had health insurance that only covered very little and it stopped on July 31 2007. He has filed Social Security disability. Well now we have to wait for 120 days and are losing everything we own. We are living in a travel trailer that his sister owns. We are in Michigan and they have denied him state help, because he isn't going to be disabled for a full year. Even though they told him he would never drive again, he is 51 yrs old. I don't understand the system that won't help when people really need it and give it to the ones that play the system by lying and we have told the truth to everything. Oh and we didn't even get a get well card from his company.
First, the government does not need to dictate what type of coverage we have, what medical providers we use, or regulate the health care market (what have they regulated that has been better off after 12 months??).
Second, I have compassion for those who can not afford proper care, but it is not the job of the government to help out with every problem. I would rather see faith based groups, charities, etc. step up and find a reasonable way to help out.
Third, we need to stop this mentality that everyone "deserves" things. We deserve life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness with as little government intrusion and input as possible.
Great thread, but many posters are ignorant about just how single payer insurance actually works. I'm a Canadian and have been a satisfied participant in provincial single-payer health plans all my life. Some facts:
-People who complain that public insurance is wasteful don't know what they're talking about. Universal single-payer insurance is vastly more efficient than what Americans have now. Administrative cost (overhead) in the US is more than 25% of the total cost of health insurance. In Canada, overhead is less than 2%.
- The idea that in public systems government bureaucrats control and vet all aspects of patient care is a MYTH. I've had surgeries, diagnostic tests, specialist referrals and follow-up visits of many kinds over the years. I have never dealt with any bureaucrat, claims adjuster or other gatekeeper. That's American medicine. The only person I deal with in regard to medical issues is my doctor. Same with 99.9% of Canadians.
- There is no such thing in Canada as a "pre-existing condition" that may disqualify you or invalidate your coverage. Under public insurance, this would be absurd. Everybody is in the same insurance pool, and there is no profit to be made from denying care to any sick person. Universal health insurance exists to provide care, not produce a profit.
- Mortality from most diseases and medical conditions is higher in public systems. The US, the richest country in the world, has among the worst infant mortality of any industrial nation.
- The US spends 15% of GDP on health care, yet leaves 47 million uninsured, and at least as many underinsured. In Canada, 8% of GDP is spent on health care, and everyone is covered.
Case closed, I'd say.
BTW, I pay $54 per month in provincial medical premiums. That covers all doctor visits, specialist referrals, hospital and emergency costs. There are no co-pays or deductibles.
Main article: Health care in the United States
According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance. Some 60% obtain health insurance through an employer, about 9% purchase it directly, and various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans (there is some overlap in these figures).[14] In 2006, there were 47 million people in the U.S. (16 percent of the population) who were without health insurance for at least part of that year.[14] About 37% of the uninsured live in households with an income over $50,000
Main article: Health care in the United States
According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance. Some 60% obtain health insurance through an employer, about 9% purchase it directly, and various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans (there is some overlap in these figures).[14] In 2006, there were 47 million people in the U.S. (16 percent of the population) who were without health insurance for at least part of that year.[14] About 37% of the uninsured live in households with an income over $50,000
Main article: Health care in the United States
According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance. Some 60% obtain health insurance through an employer, about 9% purchase it directly, and various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans (there is some overlap in these figures).[14] In 2006, there were 47 million people in the U.S. (16 percent of the population) who were without health insurance for at least part of that year.[14] About 37% of the uninsured live in households with an income over $50,000
84% Lady what do you want?
The other don't want or are just sorry!
You just want to ruin the best medical care system in the world
The last thing we want in this country is government run health care. We do not want to trade outstanding care for most and replace it with mediocre care for all.
We can do some things to improve the system we have (control legal abuse, add tax incentives for health insurance and long-term care and other reforms.
But no government health!
Dr. Robert Weed
I work for a company that gives me health insurance through the union contract which is very good, but every year we lost more and more of our pay increase to health care.
I am a strong supporter of a National Health program, the system we have now doesn’t WORK for why to many of our citizens and way to much of the money that is spend in the health system only goes to pay for administrating the system.
And yes I trust the government to do the job they do it for all of the Federal employees and I don’t hear them complaining about their health care.
The only people that don’t want this are the ones who have health care and no compassion for others.
Brad
Though I do not have heart disease, but rather kidney cancer, I couldn't resist a chance to offer my opinion on the state of America's health care system. I was diagnosed on October 24th and referred to Cleveland Clinic. Surgery was scheduled for January 2008 - but has now been canceled because I can't come up with the $8000 deposit for the surgery. I have no money, no insurance and am not eligible for Medicaid. I have had 4 doctors review my case - all 4 say I must have this mass taken out of my kidney - a partial nephrectomy at least - and 2 of these docs believe that the lesions on my liver are a metastases from what is in my kidney. But yet no one will treat me because I can't pay. Something is wrong in this country when I have to sit home and die from cancer because I can't get treatment. Bush said we could all just to the emergency room for treatment and Tom DeLay said to a group in the UK that no American is denied healt care in America. For more info on my fight with kidney cancer and the American health care system, please visit my blog at http://kristyraerichardson.blogspot.com
I am so sick and tired of people on capitol hill getting rich from donations from insurance and drug companies. I pay taxes like the rest of the people in this country and I also pay an obscene ammount of money every month for medical insurance that hardly covers anything. One year ago I was told that I would need some minor medical proceedures to remove some precancerous tissues. Instead of being concerned for my health, i was worried about how i was going to pay for these minor surgeries. They were going to cost $2000.00 of which I did not have.
To those people who truly believe that America has the most advance medicine...you're wrong. Many countries have access to the same machines, drugs and other medical equipment needed to provide state of the art care. Go spend some time in Europe or else where...I have. I have been to their hospitals and they are just like our hospitals here. Except they don't ask for money before they give you treatment. Nothing is ever perfect. Yes Europe and Canada have problems within their health care system, but America's system in disasterous!!! What we are currently doing for health care isn't working. Every system is going to have problems. But I don't understand is how a country like "America" is willing to happily take money from it's citizens on a daily, weekly, bi-weekly basis yet not provide them with BASIC NEEDS!! It makes no sense. WE NEED CHANGE NOW!!!!!!!
As a medical student, i couldn't agreee more that america needs a huge overhaul of its health care system. However, i don't think the universal health care/single payer system is the best way to go about it. Medicaer is an inherently inefficient system because there is no competition. Expanding Medicare would only lead to more waste - of both time and money. Medicare is propbably the most administratively consuming health insurance that we deal with. I think priavate insurance companies actually have developed more efficint and time/cost effiecient ways to provide health services. Ideally, i think we need states to each try out differnt ways to universally cover their residents - this may include using private insurance companies to compete for members. ultimately, a health care system should be proven on a smaller scale - like that at a state level - before we adopt a national plan.
I have COBRA insurance since I am no longer working and don't qualify for medicare yet. It is $1030 per month for 3. I can't afford this now. Just look at a medical bill for the uninsured compared to what an insurance company pays. They will pay 50% or less of what a person is charged, this is outragous. A single payer system does not mean socialized medicine. We desperately need a single payor system to run health care and negotiate the same as insurance companied do now. I will also suggest the Republicans will never give it to us. One more thing, if you have a medical problem, you won't get private health insurnace. Only group plans are prevented from rejecting someone with pre-existing conditions.
I would also suggest that the new system pay off med school loans for a doctor or nurse in return for them working for a salary.
Whether it's a good idea or not at this point is irrelevant. Take a look at how the government runs its other agencies, and it becomes abundantly clear that it is incapable of managing health care. It will be nothing short of a disaster and a waste of our taxes. I wouldn't leave my health in the hands of the government - they aren't handling social security in my best interest, so I'm taking care of my retirement too...
I'm a nurse of over 30 years and the mother of a young adult. Our health system is great if you have a job with benefits, if you're low income, or a senior. It's broken for everyone else. My daughter recently graduated from college and "aged off" my policy. She has a job she loves, but as her employer is the sole owner of a business, who has benefits through his wife, my daughter has no health care. She is (we hope) eligible for the "affordable" state plan here in NY, but that will cost her close to $200/month, and it doesn't cover dental. That's money she doesn't have after all of her living expenses and college loan payments. She was in tears one day, and stated, correctly, that she would be better off as an illegal alien from Mexico. At least then she could get basic care in a hospital!
I'm all for everyone having health insurance; but I'm NOT for the governments trying to run such a system in the form of a Universal Health Care.
If you think taxes are high NOW, imagine when you need to start paying for government-run care; someone WILL need to pay for it.
Proponents of this kind of system talk of the "glory" of insuring everyone, apeal to the bleeding hearts-a VERY desirable outcome.
However, I believe we can tweak (and tweak and tweak and tweak) the system we have, transform it to make it what WE want, be responsible for our own health and NOT let government meddle.
I've spoken with people who live under similar systems in Canada and the UK; rationing, high taxes, are just a few of the complaints.
Sure, they get an MRI-in a few months. Elective surgery?-stand in line. And by the way; taxes are sky high to pay for poor quality.
As screwy as our system (maze, really) is, it is the best in the world. We spend more per capita on it than any other nation, but that's something we can work on.
And we DON'T need a Universal System to do that. I'm a nurse of some 20+ years and we can start by focusing attention on prevention of illness, nearly 50% of which are preventable.
Well I feel very strong in a national healthcare system.Im 28 years old.I have been in college to get a degree bcuz of course my job EMT doesnt pay anything.I still work as a EMT part time since im in school full time.Is it wrong that people who dont come from well off families have to scarifice either education or healthcare? I make 7$ a hr. as a EMT.Now I dont have to tell yall how little that is.I dont care who you are you cant raise a family on my paycheck.Why I decided to go back to college.Try and better myself.But now that I have im w/o insurance and I have some medical probs. that have to be checked up on but cant be bcuz I cant afford the bills.I get so furious when I have tried so hard to do better and the huge insurance companies bring in all the money.YOU CAN GUARANTEE I'LL VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL BRING UNIVERSAL HEATHCARE.It wont solve all our probelms but at least some of the 57 million people like me can get help when they need it..
Rcently I was hired by a company that insured me through optima. I was diagnosed w/bipolar 1 and had to make regular Dr appts. and med checks. I started the meds. and for almost a year had no problem...then the company started to see me as a liabilty to their health insurance (I paid the co-pay) they fired me recently and I am currently looking for work, but can not afford the medicine that I so despertly need.
last year my husband was working as a manager. we had no med. coverage. we were doing okay. not rich, but making it alright. then we got hit head on by a drunk state cop without insurance. now we can't work, and since we have no insurance, i can't even go to the doctor to get the pain medication that i NEED to be able to manage the pain from the crushed pelvis i got, so that i can take care of my two kids. we get 700 a mo. in restitution, which in our state is too much to get medical assistance. my husband's disability was denied and nearly a year later, i still have no decision made on mine. the lives of my entire family is in limbo...I know that all systems have flaws, but it seems to me that healthcare for all seems to be a better solution than the system we have now. my mother in law has to rely and hope that the doctor has enough samples of her insulin, because they cannot afford her medicine. she's two years from MediCare and seems to me that almost everyone I talk to around here has just about the same problem, even if you can get care from the doctors, who won't (supposedly) deny you care, who decides what not to buy, diapers or medicines?
Post a Comment