[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by ingelein

You are right, I am very concerned about Hillary's and Edwards plan ,they are too much like Romney's, a TRUE single payer system is what we need to make it work. Dennis Kucinich has proposed the BEST plan yet.

H.R.676-the Conyers -Kucinich Bill
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...h676ih.txt.pdf

I agree with you that a true single payer plan is the way to go especially with an emphasis on covering primary preventive care and first dollar coverage for treatment of chronic illnesses and associated medications.

For the sake of clarity:

Medicare Part D is overbudget because of a very specific clause inserted within the legislation that prohibited Medicare from negotiating for bulk priced pharmaceuticals. As a result Medicare pays almost twice as much for lipitor than the DOD/VA system. Corporate giveaways such as the one perpetrated by the Delay congress on the american people are exactly the wrong way to design an affordable health care system. The concept was not wrong it was the strategy of implementation. Placing PHRMA profits over the interests of patients was simply wrong.

Targeting Administrative cost overruns is probably the first place to achieve savings:
The US could save enough on administrative costs1 (more than $350 billion annually) with a single-payer system2 to cover all of the uninsured.
1. Woolhandler, et al “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada,” NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003
2. “Proposal of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance,” JAMA 290(6): Aug 30, 2003
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_res...th_program.php

[CRNA2007]

Immigrant bashing???? Sounds a little Ad hominem to me.

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Immigrant bashing has no place in the discussion:

Immigrants1 and emergency department visits2 by the uninsured are not the cause of high and rising health care costs.
1. Mohanty et al. “Health Care Expenditures of Immigrants in the United States: A Nationally Representative Analysis,” American Journal of Public Health; Vol 95, No. 8, August 2005
2. Tyrance et al. “US Emergency Department Costs: No Emergency,” American Journal of Public Health; Vol 86, No. 11, November 1996

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_res...th_program.php accessed 11/29/2007.

[banditrn]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Immigrant bashing has no place in the discussion:

Immigrants1 and emergency department visits2 by the uninsured are not the cause of high and rising health care costs.
1. Mohanty et al. “Health Care Expenditures of Immigrants in the United States: A Nationally Representative Analysis,” American Journal of Public Health; Vol 95, No. 8, August 2005
2. Tyrance et al. “US Emergency Department Costs: No Emergency,” American Journal of Public Health; Vol 86, No. 11, November 1996

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_res...th_program.php accessed 11/29/2007.

And who is 'bashing' immigrants? I have LEGAL immigrants that sit at my supper table - I heard no bashing of them. But if you can't understand how much ILLEGAL ALIENS cost us all, then you've got some hefty rose tinted glasses on.

Let's put it this way - if you want to go the 'liberal' way for awhile, why not move to Canada for awhile - then report back to us in a few years.

[HM2Viking]

There was at least one post implying that immigrants were part of the cause of problems within the US health care system. I merely posted a link questioning the assumption. Out of respect to the original poster I did not include a link to the original post with the implication that blamed immigrants. I spoke only about an observed behavior which I thought needed to be questioned with evidence.

Aren't we supposed to be in the business of caring for people in their time of need? To bring this thread back on topic I challenge opponents to a single payer plan to produce real life data and evidence that shows that consumer directed health care will work better than a single payer plan.

See also:
Is something wrong just because it's not legal?
Is something right just because it is?
What would Rosa Parks have to say?
What would Chief Joseph have to say?
What would Jesus Christ have to say?
Just a thought.

Copyright 2007 Arwen

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

I'll be glad to support a single payer as long as you libs are the single payers.

Thats OK with me, I think there are alot more "libs" than you think, after Bush's 7 year debaucle.

[gerry79]

Universal health care is never going to fly in this profit driven country that we call home.

[HM2Viking]

Actually, I think it is going to fly. Corporate America wants to get out of managing health insurance. When they sa they want it to happen it will.

[Kyrshamarks]

Ok let's see under the proposal of a 2% payroll tax I would be required to pay over $2400.00 per year for the same insurance that another person is going to get for $400 a year based on a $20,000 a year income. Does not seem very fair and equitable to me. Again because I worked hard and made something of myself (with no help from my parents...they were to poor to send me to college) I end up subsidizing others who are happy with their lot in life or are too lazy to make an effort to get a leg up. I have no problem helping those that cannot help themselves but under the proposal I would be required to help everyone. What is the incentive to better yourself if things are handed to you?

On another thought what happens when the payor in your single payor scam decides they are going to cut their reimbursement rates? I can see this happening. If the economy takes a cyclic turn and goes down, the revenues then are decreased thus requiring cost cutting measures. The first measure is always to cut the rate of reimbursment. The market will not set the rates, the payor sets it and I can see doctors opting out like they do now with medicaid and medicare and requiring cash payments. Then you get to try to get your money back from the single payor system. This is currently happening in Britain where it is next to impossible to find an NHS dentist. Or when you find one, to get an appointment anytime in the near future. Are they going to legally require all MD's be members of this system? If so then you now have defacto socialized care and all the problems that it entails.

How about a few answers?

[HM2Viking]

See:
On the basis of the Canadian experience, average physician incomes should change little. However, the income disparity between specialties is likely to shrink.
The drop in income that a physician might experience under a single-payer system could be mitigated by a drastic reduction in office overhead and malpractice costs. Billing would involve imprinting the patient’s national health program card on a charge slip, checking a box to indicate the complexity of the procedure or service, and sending the slip (or a computer record) to the physician-payment board. This simplification of billing would save thousands of dollars per practitioner in annual office expenses.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...2/#doc_incomes


See also:
Secondly, we would likely retain salaries for health professionals at their current levels. Thirdly, we would cover much more than most other countries do by including dental care, eye care, and prescriptions. And for these reasons we would need the extra 40% that we are already spending – but NOT more. We could cover all the uninsured for the same amount we are currently spending!
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...?page=4/#60-40

What do you currently pay for your insurance? At worst this system would be a cost wash for higher incomes. As to those who make 20,000 per year we are going to end up subsidizing health insurance at those income levels regardless. Assuring affordable access to health care is simply the right thing to do. I would rather be in a situation where I am paying more for my health care because I earn more. Social justice as a core nursing value that requires us as professionals to be concerned about the least fortunate in society.

BTW no one in America makes it alone. Someone paid for the public schools, clean air, clean water etc that allowed you to take advantage of your opportunities. If you went to a public university for your nurses training you did receive some tuition subsidy by taxpayers for your schooling.

[Jolie]

Kyrshamarks,

You raise some interesting and valid points that I've not seen addressed yet.

I did the math on the 7% employer and 2% employee contributions, which essentially amount to a 9% employee payroll deduction. (Let's face it, if your employer didn't have to pay 7% into the "system", he could pay you that money instead, so it is truly a 9% reduction in employee income.) Viking, before you chime in that the 7% employer contribution is probably less than what my husband's company contributes to our insurance premiums...It isn't. I did that math, too. His company contributes less than 6% of his yearly salary toward insurance premiums, and we contribute 1.5% of his salary, so this plan is more expensive for both employer and employee. Based on the 7% and 2% contributions alone, this plan would cost our family more that twice our current yearly exposure for healthcare costs (insurance premuims, deductible, and out-of-pocket maximum.) Hardly a good deal. Add to that co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance, and user fees, which I'm certain will exist with this plan, and our costs go even higher, not to mention that we have no choice in the plan or ability to seek out a less costly option. It is a conservative estimate that this scheme will cost at least 10% of our yearly income, much more than our current exposure.

Another factor that no-one has addressed is that many families currently obtain insurance from one spouse's employment and then "opt out" of coverage in lieu of higher pay from the other spouse's employer. That would no longer be possible because every working person will be forced to pay into the "system", causing many families to pay double for insurance while garnering no additional benefits. In the past, I have worked on a "casual basis", negotiating a higher pay rate in lieu of benefits which my husband earns thru his employer. Under this system, I couldn't do that. Employers will not offer a higher pay rate in lieu of insurance, since they will be forced to contribute to the insurance pool for every employee regardless of that person's need (or lack of need) for coverage. Talk about a dis-incentive for me to return to work!

And then in a few years when my daughter is old enough to get her first job, she will have to pay insurance premiums out of her minimum wage paycheck, even though both of her parents already pay into the system. Again, a dis-incentive for her to seek employment, and a dis-incentive for an employer to offer entry level jobs to teenagers.