Re: Healthcare burden growing
The majority will see a real savings. In the long run by limiting cost shifting from the uninsured to the insured this will reduce medical costs. There are a lot of ways to slice the apple in order to get the uninsured into the system. The evidence shows that a tax funded single payer system would deliver better results at lower costs. To put my thoughts in context
see:
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.
Source:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...lth_of_nations accessed 11/29/07.
The point is that if you have insurance at this time that you are more than likely asked to pay a copay. PNHP proposes elimination of copays for office visits through elimination of excessive administration costs. A well designed system would cover primary preventive care at 100%.
The evidence is that most people will see a reduction of cost for their health insurance under a properly designed universal access plan.
See:
Cutting our health care costs by 25% will result in real savings to the vast majority of people. PLUS they end up with better coverage.
There is a way to make the system work better:
Nursing News