Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,857 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 22 | 
Aug 05, 2009, 11:45 PM
 Re: The future of Obamacare
The VA system (while not perfect.) is actually the model we should pursue as we reform our system.....
1. Primary care focused.
2. Community Based clinics
3. Emphasis on keeping people healthy AND intervening before they need hospitalization.... What makes this such an explosive story is that the VHA is a truly socialized medical system. The unquestioned leader in American health care is a government agency that employs 198,000 federal workers from five different unions, and nonetheless maintains short wait times and high consumer satisfaction. Eighty-three percent of VHA hospital patients say they are satisfied with their care, 69 percent report being seen within 20 minutes of scheduled appointments, and 93 percent see a specialist within 30 days.
Critics will say that the VHA is not significantly cheaper than other American health care, but that's misleading. In fact, the VHA is also proving far better than the private sector at controlling costs. As Longman explains, "Veterans enrolled in [the VHA] are, as a group, older, sicker, poorer, and more prone to mental illness, homelessness, and substance abuse than the population as a whole. Half of all VHA enrollees are over age 65. More than a third smoke. One in five veterans has diabetes, compared with one in 14 U.S. residents in general." Yet the VHA's spending per patient in 2004 was $540 less than the national average, and the average American is healthier and younger (the nation includes children; the VHA doesn't) http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...lth_of_nations  | | No. 23 |
Aug 06, 2009, 12:57 AM
Re: The future of Obamacare
The VA system, without failure, should be the best system in the world for one simple reason. These men and women defend freedom. They defend the right to free speech. They defend the democratic process. They defend the Constitution of the United States of America. They stand the wall so we may sleep at night.
The VA system is not perfect and has it problems. Providing these people anything less then the best is just wrong and immoral. And by the way, most vets don't abuse the system. If Vets burdened the systems like the folks on Medicaid who use the ER like their personal nanny, the system would fail miserably.
God Bless America and the military personnel that defend it. Yo HM2, thanks.
| | No. 24 |
Aug 06, 2009, 10:45 AM
Re: The future of Obamacare
Anything run by the government SHOULD be but it never is. Private systems are models of efficiency, cost containment and elimination of red tape. Originally Posted by WorkinTheStreets  The VA system, without failure, should be the best system in the world for one simple reason. These men and women defend freedom. They defend the right to free speech. They defend the democratic process. They defend the Constitution of the United States of America. They stand the wall so we may sleep at night.
The VA system is not perfect and has it problems. Providing these people anything less then the best is just wrong and immoral. And by the way, most vets don't abuse the system. If Vets burdened the systems like the folks on Medicaid who use the ER like their personal nanny, the system would fail miserably.
God Bless America and the military personnel that defend it. Yo HM2, thanks. | | No. 25 |
Aug 07, 2009, 12:45 PM
Re: The future of Obamacare Originally Posted by CRNA2007 Private systems are models of efficiency, cost containment and elimination of red tape.
As related to healthcare, unfortunately the facts do not back up your statement. I refer you to an article that may be accessed on Medscape (free registration is required) Please take a few minutes to read it.
Fact and Fiction: Debunking Myths in the US Healthcare System
Umut Sarpel, MD; Bruce C. Vladeck, PhD; Celia M. Divino, MD; Paul E. Klotman, MD
Published: 06/06/2008 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/573877_2
Efficiency:
" it is perhaps surprising that in a 10-nation 1990 survey on the level of satisfaction with the national healthcare system, the United States ranked 10th. These results were then reproduced a decade later. Although Americans believe the US system is the best, clearly they are not as satisfied with the healthcare they receive as are citizens of other countries.
In fact, this disparity between perception and reality has been captured in several studies. In the year 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) dedicated its annual World Health Report to a comparison of healthcare across the globe. In this exhaustive analysis, American superiority was not borne out: the United States ranked 32nd for infant survival, 24th for life expectancy, and 54th for fairness. The fairness ranking was derived from a comparison of the individual financial contribution required with the quality of healthcare received. The current US system is known as a regressive system; that is, the poor pay relatively more for healthcare. In fact, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 18% of their income on healthcare, whereas the richest fifth of Americans spend about 3%. In this type of regressive system, it is clear why about 50% of personal bankruptcies in the United States are related to medical bills. Tragically, 75% of individuals declaring medical bankruptcy had medical insurance at the onset of their illness. Overall, the WHO ranked the United States 37th in the world."
Cost containment: "In truth, federal health insurance is much more cost-efficient than private insurance because of its ability to streamline costs. The existence of multiple private insurance companies increases the complexity of the system and administrative costs. At present, the US system is overrun by hundreds of for-profit insurance providers. Medicare's administrative costs run less than 3%, whereas private insurance administrative costs are above 16% of budget. These funds are spent on increasing revenue by aggressive marketing and billing, and decreasing losses with programs such as utilization reviews (labor-intensive patient chart surveys performed to monitor billing practices). This policy does save individual insurance companies money, but there is a substantial overhead involved in this labor-intensive process. Furthermore, there is no evidence that utilization reviews decrease the national healthcare expenditure, they merely shift the financial burden away from the individual company. Private insurance companies vie to cut their own costs without regard to the effects on the national healthcare expenditures."
Red tape:
Have you used your HMO/PPO lately?
| | No. 26 |
Aug 07, 2009, 06:29 PM
Re: The future of Obamacare
Efficiency:
" it is perhaps surprising that in a 10-nation 1990 survey on the level of satisfaction with the national healthcare system, the United States ranked 10th. These results were then reproduced a decade later. Although Americans believe the US system is the best, clearly they are not as satisfied with the healthcare they receive as are citizens of other countries.
In fact, this disparity between perception and reality has been captured in several studies. In the year 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) dedicated its annual World Health Report to a comparison of healthcare across the globe. In this exhaustive analysis, American superiority was not borne out: the United States ranked 32nd for infant survival, 24th for life expectancy, and 54th for fairness. The fairness ranking was derived from a comparison of the individual financial contribution required with the quality of healthcare received. The current US system is known as a regressive system; that is, the poor pay relatively more for healthcare. In fact, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 18% of their income on healthcare, whereas the richest fifth of Americans spend about 3%. In this type of regressive system, it is clear why about 50% of personal bankruptcies in the United States are related to medical bills. Tragically, 75% of individuals declaring medical bankruptcy had medical insurance at the onset of their illness. Overall, the WHO ranked the United States 37th in the world."
Cost containment: "In truth, federal health insurance is much more cost-efficient than private insurance because of its ability to streamline costs. The existence of multiple private insurance companies increases the complexity of the system and administrative costs. At present, the US system is overrun by hundreds of for-profit insurance providers. Medicare's administrative costs run less than 3%, whereas private insurance administrative costs are above 16% of budget. These funds are spent on increasing revenue by aggressive marketing and billing, and decreasing losses with programs such as utilization reviews (labor-intensive patient chart surveys performed to monitor billing practices). This policy does save individual insurance companies money, but there is a substantial overhead involved in this labor-intensive process. Furthermore, there is no evidence that utilization reviews decrease the national healthcare expenditure, they merely shift the financial burden away from the individual company. Private insurance companies vie to cut their own costs without regard to the effects on the national healthcare expenditures."
Red tape:
Have you used your HMO/PPO lately?[/quote]
As a matter of fact, I use my Blue Shield HMO frequently. No red tape, never a problem. As a veteran, I've also tried the government system. No thanks.
| | No. 28 |
Aug 08, 2009, 12:50 PM
Re: The future of Obamacare
" As a matter of fact, I use my Blue Shield HMO frequently. No red tape, never a problem." I'm glad for you K98 -you're doing better than Judith, from Santa Monica, CA and her family:
" I have three health insurance horror stories in my immediate family alone. Including an uncle whose HMO allowed him to die from prostate cancer (which I've since been told is easily treatable, but treatment was delayed or denied until he died.)
Oh and by the way, the "oncologist" assigned to my uncle's case, turned out to actually be a gynecologist from another country. Apparently, assigned because he wouldn't be aware of how to treat my uncle's cancer.
Death by spreadsheet, indeed.
My stepbrother required heart surgery, and afterward was fired from his job -- privately, he was told that the Health insurance company had pressured his company, threatened to drop all the company's coverage, if they didn't fire the heart patient. No matter that my stepbrother has been healthy for ten years since, and has required no further surgeries -- it was job loss by spreadsheet.
Meanwhile, I'm 59 years old without any health care, after a decade of fighting to get insurance, fighting to get insurance companies to treat me, or fighting to get an insurance company to pay my doctors.
I've paid out to a plan that turned out to be fraudulent, another that arbitrarily dropped everyone in my state, and another that raised my individual rates until I could no longer afford insurance, when it finally reached $1,000 a month, just for me. (And even at that price, wouldn't cover $500 a month more for treatments I require.)" http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/...ries-my-family | | No. 29 |
Aug 08, 2009, 09:15 PM
Re: The future of Obamacare Originally Posted by UKRNinUSA " As a matter of fact, I use my Blue Shield HMO frequently. No red tape, never a problem." I'm glad for you K98 -you're doing better than Judith, from Santa Monica, CA and her family:
" I have three health insurance horror stories in my immediate family alone. Including an uncle whose HMO allowed him to die from prostate cancer (which I've since been told is easily treatable, but treatment was delayed or denied until he died.)
Oh and by the way, the "oncologist" assigned to my uncle's case, turned out to actually be a gynecologist from another country. Apparently, assigned because he wouldn't be aware of how to treat my uncle's cancer.
Death by spreadsheet, indeed.
My stepbrother required heart surgery, and afterward was fired from his job -- privately, he was told that the Health insurance company had pressured his company, threatened to drop all the company's coverage, if they didn't fire the heart patient. No matter that my stepbrother has been healthy for ten years since, and has required no further surgeries -- it was job loss by spreadsheet.
Meanwhile, I'm 59 years old without any health care, after a decade of fighting to get insurance, fighting to get insurance companies to treat me, or fighting to get an insurance company to pay my doctors.
I've paid out to a plan that turned out to be fraudulent, another that arbitrarily dropped everyone in my state, and another that raised my individual rates until I could no longer afford insurance, when it finally reached $1,000 a month, just for me. (And even at that price, wouldn't cover $500 a month more for treatments I require.)" http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/...ries-my-family
"Stories" indeed. A totally unsubstantiated "story" published on the CNA website. Real stories please. Evidence, not anecdotes.
|
| 271 members
2,443 guests 2,714
| 47 | | | 1 | | | 13 | | | 2 | | | 10 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 16 | | | 16 | | | 43 | | | 14 | | | 21 | | | 23 | | | 20 | | | 24 | |
|
Nursing News