Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,067 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 71 | 
May 21, 2009, 11:17 PM
 Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing
There's that buzz word again - socialism. There is nothing socialistic about a single payer healthcare system. Socialism means that the government completely takes over the means of production (like Chavez did with the oil industry in Venezuela) as well as controlling the goods that are produced. I see nothing that resembles anything that remotely resembles socialism. And its getting rather tiresome seeing all these buzz word that try to evoke knee-jerk reactions without any real consideration for what it means.
A single payer healthcare plan aggregates tax payer's buying power, allows us to also have the ability to negotiate better rates with pharma companies - you know through the free market - and also to cover everyone. It seems to me that it makes our free market more efficient by forcing each hosptial, drug company, medical supplier, etc. compete with each other to cut waste and perform better. Otherwise consumers will go to other hospitals and the single payer system won't contract to buy from you. Patients will no longer have to choose within just who's covered in their HMO or PPO.
In terms of the politics of the matter - i think its wishfull thinking on your part to hope that people don't recognize how broken our healthcare system is. We knew in November when we voted in a new party. And we expect to get things done.
 | | No. 72 |
May 21, 2009, 11:19 PM
Updated
May 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM by multicollinearity
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by blue note 
Why, that would be playing the race card, wouldn't it?
I don't like the expression "race card."
Can we get back to the issue of mandated coverage and what that coverage might be?
| | No. 73 |
May 21, 2009, 11:33 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing
I'm already kind of upset that the discussion in the administration has shifted away from a true single payer system.
However this is something that the private healthcare lobby has been pushing for as it is a very clever but sinister way to ensure the death of any serious single payer program. Heres why...
What I'm most afraid of is that they will compromise and accept some sort of patchwork, piecemeal, stop gap measure. Some republican offered to make some sort of program that would insure those with pre-existing conditions who can't afford to pay the outrageous payments.
If such a system was set up, our current private care system would still be in place, with these new people with pre-existing conditions all aggregated to this government plan. After a few years this program will inevitably face financial trouble since EVERYONE in it has severe medical problems. It's going to need to be funded continually and then the Republicans and the private healthcare lobby will cry foul. They will say:
"Look here....look how this government administered healthcare system is failing! If we undertake a full single payer system, think of how horrible it would be, it would be bankrupt!"
People will then take this on face value, won't scratch below the surface - and there we have it folks. The death of single payer healthcare in the US, probably for the next 50 year or more. I tell ya - these insurance lobbyists would turn on their mother for a bonus.
What gives me hope however is that Obama is wicked smart. Scary smart. Whats even more encouraging is that he's surrounded himself with other very intelligent people. And Im sure they've thought about this move, their countermove, etc.
Siggghhh...one things for sure. I would never last in the world of politics. It's too dirty for me. I guess thats why we send politicians to do the dirty work.
| | No. 74 |
May 21, 2009, 11:50 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by Agrippa I'm already kind of upset that the discussion in the administration has shifted away from a true single payer system.
However this is something that the private healthcare lobby has been pushing for as it is a very clever but sinister way to ensure the death of any serious single payer program. Heres why...
I suspect the Obama administration knows Americans will not go for any health care financing reform that takes insurance companies out of the equation. Decades of history show us this is the case. People say they want health care reform, but when they imagine their employer health insurance going away, they get very frightened and revert to the status quo. So the next step is to incrementally move towards universal coverage utilizing insurance companies and public coverage options.
As years go by, Americans would see that the public coverage is not substandard, scary, lacking, etc, and that the sky did not fall. Within a few years, the cost of universal coverage through insurance companies would break the US bank worse than anything we've seen due to throwing away ~30% of the money on waste and insurance company profit/stock dividends. So the next incremental step would be to go to a single-payor universal coverage system utilizing the public coverage options that were eased in years prior.
| | No. 75 |
May 22, 2009, 12:23 AM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing
Obama has said that he favors single payer if he were designing the system from scratch. Much as I prefer single payer, I simply do not think it is realistically going to come to fruition any time soon. I think the best we can hope for, is a viable compromise that survives the objections and propaganda the insurance and big pharma lobbies will undoubtedly put up. If such a system was set up, our current private care system would still be in place, with these new people with pre-existing conditions all aggregated to this government plan.
It would have to be a competitive alternative that would be attractive to many people and even small business, not just people with pre-existing conditions. Just the fact that the insurance companies are so against government getting into the insurance business as their competition is heartening though.   | | No. 76 |
May 22, 2009, 09:10 AM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by multicollinearity People say they want health care reform, but when they imagine their employer health insurance going away, they get very frightened and revert to the status quo.
What I don't get is why more people don't recognize how nonsensical, downright Kafkaesque, it is to have our healthcare coverage tied to our employment in the first place. I understand the historical reasons why this got started in the US originally, but that time and the original reasons have long since passed, yet we continue to be stuck with this crazy system (unique in the world, I believe) of your healthcare coverage being supplied through your employer. Employers don't like it, it creates a significant economic burden for US companies attempting to compete with businesses in other (more enlightened) countries, and it binds people with health problems (or family members with health problems) to a particular job because of their fear that, if they give up their current coverage, they wouldn't be able to get "new" coverage (at least, not at an affordable rate). I'm always surprised the GOP isn't on the side of major change for those reasons! In this situation, it looks like the GOP is only "pro-business" when it comes to the private insurance companies ... How many people are out there who would like to work part-time and do something else also, or start up a small business, or any number of other adventures, who aren't able to because they're locked into their current employer's coverage? How many people are stuck in jobs they hate because they need the insurance?
Plus, I'm always surprised at the number of people I talk to who somehow believe that the (comparatively) small amount they see deducted from their paycheck each pay period is the full cost of their health insurance. They are somehow unaware of the additional hundreds of dollars a month that the employer is paying that the employee never sees. The employers aren't doing this as charity  -- that's income you earn but never see, because it's taken "off the top" each month by your employer. People who complain about how a single payer system would mean "raising taxes" never seem to factor in that we would each be saving many hundreds of dollars a month in insurance premiums that we're paying now to the for-profit insurance companies.
BTW, for anyone who's interested, I notice in my TV listings that the "Bill Moyers Journal" episode on PBS this weekend is going to be a panel discussion of single-payer healthcare for the US.
| | No. 77 |
May 22, 2009, 02:41 PM
Updated
May 22, 2009 at 03:19 PM by multicollinearity
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by elkpark What I don't get is why more people don't recognize how nonsensical, downright Kafkaesque, it is to have our healthcare coverage tied to our employment in the first place. I understand the historical reasons why this got started in the US originally, but that time and the original reasons have long since passed, yet we continue to be stuck with this crazy system (unique in the world, I believe) of your healthcare coverage being supplied through your employer. Employers don't like it, it creates a significant economic burden for US companies attempting to compete with businesses in other (more enlightened) countries, and it binds people with health problems (or family members with health problems) to a particular job because of their fear that, if they give up their current coverage, they wouldn't be able to get "new" coverage (at least, not at an affordable rate). I'm always surprised the GOP isn't on the side of major change for those reasons! In this situation, it looks like the GOP is only "pro-business" when it comes to the private insurance companies ... How many people are out there who would like to work part-time and do something else also, or start up a small business, or any number of other adventures, who aren't able to because they're locked into their current employer's coverage? How many people are stuck in jobs they hate because they need the insurance?
Plus, I'm always surprised at the number of people I talk to who somehow believe that the (comparatively) small amount they see deducted from their paycheck each pay period is the full cost of their health insurance. They are somehow unaware of the additional hundreds of dollars a month that the employer is paying that the employee never sees. The employers aren't doing this as charity -- that's income you earn but never see, because it's taken "off the top" each month by your employer. People who complain about how a single payer system would mean "raising taxes" never seem to factor in that we would each be saving many hundreds of dollars a month in insurance premiums that we're paying now to the for-profit insurance companies.
BTW, for anyone who's interested, I notice in my TV listings that the "Bill Moyers Journal" episode on PBS this weekend is going to be a panel discussion of single-payer healthcare for the US.
I agree completely. Too bad the average American who gets health insurance through his or her employer doesn't understand all this. Of course, Harry and Louise switched sides recently, so maybe perception is changing.
I can't tell you how many clients I talked to over the years - they actually believed they were paying for all their coverage out of their paycheck, just like you said. They have no idea the thousands of dollars their employer is paying. They are truly ignorant that it is disabling American industry from competing in the global market. There's a reason why Toyota opened their new plants in Canada - they cited health care expenses in the US! Our own people don't know that we spend the most of any nation on healthcare, per person, and have sub-standard outcomes to show for all that money.
They have no idea, truly no idea, that if they went to the individual market (McCain's plan), it's likely they could not get coverage for their regular, common pre-existing conditions or the premiums would be sky high with substandard coverage. They are genuinely ignorant of just how vulnerable they are.
One thing I've noticed about supporters of the current system - they seem to have this sunny perception of a market that does not exist. They don't understand that capitalism applied to health care financing means the insurance companies say to anyone with any health condition that might cost money, "You, you might be expensive. You're on your own."
| | No. 78 |
May 22, 2009, 05:43 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing
it's likely they could not get coverage for their regular, common pre-existing conditions or the premiums would be sky high with substandard coverage. They are genuinely ignorant of just how vulnerable they are. I am unsure of the laws and regulations in other states.. But here in NC if you were on employer insurance and needed to later buy individual insurance, you qualify for a policy WITHOUT medical underwriting, and all pre existing conditions are covered... | | No. 79 |
May 22, 2009, 05:48 PM
Re: Talk of insurance mandate growing Originally Posted by FairyCari it's likely they could not get coverage for their regular, common pre-existing conditions or the premiums would be sky high with substandard coverage. They are genuinely ignorant of just how vulnerable they are.
I am unsure of the laws and regulations in other states.. But here in NC if you were on employer insurance and needed to later buy individual insurance, you qualify for a policy WITHOUT medical underwriting, and all pre existing conditions are covered...
Right. At double and triple the rates. Remember my post from the first page of this thread where I posted the BCBS brochure showing the only coverage I could get in my state under this provision and how would be about $1200 per month? http://www.azblue.com/pdfs/health-pl...abilityCvg.pdf
Twelve hundred dollars per month for health insurance for a single 34 year old female is not a solution.
|
| 313 members
2,762 guests 3,075
| 1 | | | 11 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 14 | | | 16 | | | 37 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | | | 10 | |
|
Nursing News