[DarrenWright]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

From Washington to Sacramento, the air is filled with talk about how to reform our dysfunctional healthcare system. But only a single-payer system would assure that everyone is covered with one high standard of benefits and care, (as opposed to good care for the wealthy only) establish effective cost controls, curb administrative waste, and end insurance industry interference with care.
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/facts

Untrue.

A single payer system in no-way whatsoever assures "that everyone is covered with one high standard of benefits and care," and in fact assures that everyone is guaranteed coverage at the lowest levels routinely available, while people wealthy enough to purchase additional insurance will receive care not available at the single-payor level.

That is unless, you advocate completely eliminating private insurance and private payees and taking away people's right to do what they want with their bodies.

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

Untrue.

A single payer system in no-way whatsoever assures "that everyone is covered with one high standard of benefits and care," and in fact assures that everyone is guaranteed coverage at the lowest levels routinely available, while people wealthy enough to purchase additional insurance will receive care not available at the single-payor level.

That is unless, you advocate completely eliminating private insurance and private payees and taking away people's right to do what they want with their bodies.

You are right that single payer would not guarantee all the healthcare a person needs. That is the goal. Nurses are working toward that goal.
If not single payer what do you suggest?

[DarrenWright]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

You are right that single payer would not guarantee all the healthcare a person needs. That is the goal. Nurses are working toward that goal.
If not single payer what do you suggest?

There is no such thing as a program that will guarantee "all the healthcare a person needs." It's simply not an achievable goal.

[VivaLasViejas]

No---but it's a step in the right direction.

[ZASHAGALKA]

If you want affordable insurance than we need to turn health insurance into an actual insurance program. The current systems amount to little more than prepaid care.

Catastrophic health insurance that covers hospitalization, outpt surgery, and major DME/Meds only would be very cheap by comparison.

Once consumers start actually paying for office visits and routine care, then you can bet that the market will make things competitive and as top notch in comparison to lowest price as possible.

The market always works, if the gov't gets out of the way. The problem with healthcare today is NOT the market, but the gov't interference that already exists. More gov't involvement will just make things worse, not better.

Your fatcat insurance people get rich because the gov't discourages the market from being competitive. Insurance execs with no need to be competitive can just vote themselves lavish salaries. Why wouldn't they, what with the gov't protecting their slice of the marketplace? That's a gov't problem, not a market problem.

~faith,
Timothy.

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

If you want afforadable insurance than we need to turn health insurance into an actual insurance program. The current systems amount to little more than prepaid care.

Catastrophic health insurance that covers hospitalization, outpt surgery, and major DME/Meds only would be very cheap by comparison.

Once consumers start actually paying for office visits and routine care, then you can bet that the market will make things competitive and as top notch in comparison to lowest price as possible.

The market always works, if the gov't gets out of the way. The problem with healthcare today is NOT the market, but the gov't interference that already exists. More gov't involvement will just make things worse, not better.

Your fatcat insurance people get rich because the gov't discourages the market from being competitive. Insurance execs with no need to be competitive can just vote themselves lavish salaries. Why wouldn't they, what with the gov't protecting their slice of the marketplace? That's a gov't problem, not a market problem.

~faith,
Timothy.

OK I have a $20.00 co pay and about $35.00 for the lab when I see my doctor.
Insurance pays about $110.00.
Do you if insurance didn't pay anything think the cost would go down on these so the person making less than a nurse with a young family wouldn't have to pay 165.00 or more for a visit to the doctor?

Maybe because the physician practice wouldn't have to pay someone to bill the insurance company?

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

OK I have a $20.00 co pay and about $35.00 for the lab when I see my doctor.
Insurance pays about $110.00.
Do you if insurance didn't pay anything think the cost would go down on these so the person making less than a nurse with a young family wouldn't have to pay 165.00 or more for a visit to the doctor?

Maybe because the physician practice wouldn't have to pay someone to bill the insurance company?

Of course the price would come down. I would be willing to bet that, straight up visit, no paperwork, no insurance, would be something on the order of 40-50 bucks. But, ONLY if the docs had a reason to be competitive with each other. This is already happening in some places.

Think about it: 40 bucks for a 10 min visit is STILL 240/hr. Not bad money, if you can get it. Of course, that means you have to keep your overhead low, and do OTHER things that actually make you competitive. Go figure.

Not just office visits, though. A CBC that cost less than 5 dollars to run would NOT cost 300 bucks if the market dictated its cost. It would cost, maybe 15-20.

A CT scan would be a hundred bucks, or less, if the market dictated its price, and that is complete with interpretation.

Meds prices would fall. Do you think the new ARBs would really cost 200 bucks for a month's supply if consumers, now paying for what things really cost, opted for a 20 dollar generic ACE Inhibitor instead?

Let me bring it home. My monthly supply of Brand name Lotrel (Ca channel blocker plus ACE Inhibitor) would cost (if I weren't just paying an insurance co-pay) 110/month. If I had to shell out that total cost out of my OWN pocket, you can BET that my doc and I would have a nice little conversation about GENERIC Ca channel blockers and ACEI. You can bet. As it is now, my prescription plan doesn't much discriminate between the two (name brand combo vs individual generics), and so, neither do I.

~faith,
Timothy.

[pickledpepperRN]

How can we get the insurance companies out of routine care?

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Of course the price would come down. I would be willing to bet that, straight up visit, no paperwork, no insurance, would be something on the order of 40-50 bucks. But, ONLY if the docs had a reason to be competitive with each other. This is already happening in some places.

Think about it: 40 bucks for a 10 min visit is STILL 240/hr. Not bad money, if you can get it. Of course, that means you have to keep your overhead low, and do OTHER things that actually make you competitive. Go figure.

Not just office visits, though. A CBC that cost less than 5 dollars to run would NOT cost 300 bucks if the market dictated its cost. It would cost, maybe 15-20.

A CT scan would be a hundred bucks, or less, if the market dictated its price, and that is complete with interpretation.

Meds prices would fall. Do you think the new ARBs would really cost 200 bucks for a month's supply if consumers, now paying for what things really cost, opted for a 20 dollar generic ACE Inhibitor instead?

Let me bring it home. My monthly supply of Brand name Lotrel (Ca channel blocker plus ACE Inhibitor) would cost (if I weren't just paying an insurance co-pay) 110/month. If I had to shell out that total cost out of my OWN pocket, you can BET that my doc and I would have a nice little conversation about GENERIC Ca channel blockers and ACEI. You can bet. As it is now, my prescription plan doesn't much discriminate between the two (name brand combo vs individual generics), and so, neither do I.

~faith,
Timothy.

Why not just adopt this plan instead:

As Jonathan Cohn explains in his new book, Sick:

In order to prevent cost sharing from penalizing people with serious medical problems -- the way Health Savings Accounts threaten to do -- the [French] government limits every individual's out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, the government has identified thirty chronic conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, for which there is usually no cost sharing, in order to make sure people don't skimp on preventive care that might head off future complications.

The French do the same for pharmaceuticals, which are grouped into one of three classes and reimbursed at 35 percent, 65 percent, or 100 percent of cost, depending on whether data show their use to be cost effective. It's a wise straddle of a tricky problem, and one that other nations would do well to emulate.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...lth_of_nations

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

Untrue.

A single payer system in no-way whatsoever assures "that everyone is covered with one high standard of benefits and care," and in fact assures that everyone is guaranteed coverage at the lowest levels routinely available, while people wealthy enough to purchase additional insurance will receive care not available at the single-payor level.

That is unless, you advocate completely eliminating private insurance and private payees and taking away people's right to do what they want with their bodies.

We can achieve higher quality health care at a lower price: Emphasis added.

France's has a high floor and no ceiling. The government provides basic insurance for all citizens, albeit with relatively robust co-pays, and then encourages the population to also purchase supplementary insurance -- which 86 percent do, most of them through employers, with the poor being subsidized by the state. This allows for as high a level of care as an individual is willing to pay for, and may help explain why waiting lines are nearly unknown in France.
France's system is further prized for its high level of choice and responsiveness -- attributes that led the World Health Organization to rank it the finest in the world (America's system came in at No. 37, between Costa Rica and Slovenia). The French can see any doctor or specialist they want, at any time they want, as many times as they want, no referrals or permissions needed. The French hospital system is similarly open. About 65 percent of the nation's hospital beds are public, but individuals can seek care at any hospital they want, public or private, and receive the same reimbursement rate no matter its status. Given all this, the French utilize more care than Americans do, averaging six physician visits a year to our 2.8, and they spend more time in the hospital as well. Yet they still manage to spend half per capita than we do, largely due to lower prices and a focus on preventive care.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...lth_of_nations