I've come to realize that the newer buzzword seems to be "Universal Coverage" instead of "Socialized Medicine". The plans that I read about seem to want to construct a government mandated system that incorporates all the HMOs and insurance companies.
I think this is wrong. One of the problems with our system is that it's got too many fingers in the pie. I'm in favor of a single payer, British style system or else keeping the present free for all we have now. I think the Democrats, who are the most likely to be in favor of a big government program like this, are too afraid to take on the powerful lobbies of HMOs and Insurance companies.
If we come up with a hybrid system like is being proposed, we are in for even more regulatory confusion and mess than we are even seeing now.
I think a single payer, government run socialized system is the best option. I also think that there must be strict tort reform that goes along with it to protect healthcare providers from frivilous lawsuits.
Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.
Health care is the one area where I don't trust 'the market' to do the right thing.
I would like nothing more than to see all the multimillionaire health-insurance company CEOs and their paper-pushers out of work. This 'system' we have right now is insane.........nobody can keep all the different companies with their difference policies and rules straight. It's a bureaucratic nightmare.
I will admit that my perspective is somewhat prejudiced because I deal with insurance companies all the time on behalf of the residents in my ALF, and it is MOST unpleasant. Not only do they usually deny my residents needed medical equipment and prescriptions, but the bureaucracy one has to go through in order to appeal the denial is too much sometimes for ME, let alone the average patient. And yes, I do believe the insurance industry does things that way on purpose so that people are too intimidated by the volume and the complexity of the paperwork to fight for their benefits.
The sooner we get the insurance industry out of health care, the simpler ALL our jobs will be.
I am glad that you are optimistic about the future of healthcare in our country.
I don't share your trust of the government to "get it right".
If such a dismal and negative outlook was in place when the North decided to go to war to free the slaves, or when we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl harbor, or when women wanted the vote, how could we have won the war, gave women to right to vote and freed the slaves? Cant do attitude never got any country anywhere except to be overrun by a CAN do country.
Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.
Why place your healthcare in the hands of politicians, many of whom you don't trust?
If you believe the current administration is unfit to manage healthcare, what makes you think the next (and/or Congress) will be any better? Regardless of your political persuasion, it is reasonable to estimate that approximately 1/2 of the time, you will not approve of those who sit in the White House and on Capital Hill. Why would you hand your healthcare over to them? That's a crapshoot I'm not willing to make.
Neither am I.
That's why I advocate a system of universal coverage that provides a basic package of health services for every US citizen and is administered at the state level. I think the states are in a much better position to decide what their populations need. I also would have this system administered by a panel of experts in the health, financial, and legal fields rather than politicians. All of the monies that are currently paid to the insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid would instead go into a fund that would provide every citizen with preventive care and basic health services. Those who are wealthier can always buy more coverage if they want it, and nobody would be allowed to "opt out" (like with auto insurance) so the contributions would come from the entire population---not just those who are employed or who can afford insurance premiums.
I'm sure there are a gazillion things wrong with this idea, but almost nothing can be worse than 40+ million uninsured and underinsured Americans. We need universal health care, and we need it sooner rather than later!
That's why I advocate a system of universal coverage that provides a basic package of health services for every US citizen and is administered at the state level. I think the states are in a much better position to decide what their populations need. I also would have this system administered by a panel of experts in the health, financial, and legal fields rather than politicians. All of the monies that are currently paid to the insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid would instead go into a fund that would provide every citizen with preventive care and basic health services. Those who are wealthier can always buy more coverage if they want it, and nobody would be allowed to "opt out" (like with auto insurance) so the contributions would come from the entire population---not just those who are employed or who can afford insurance premiums.
I'm sure there are a gazillion things wrong with this idea, but almost nothing can be worse than 40+ million uninsured and underinsured Americans. We need universal health care, and we need it sooner rather than later!
There are some good state plans out there and in the works, I dont care who administers it as long as the private health insurance companies are out of the mix, OR if they have to be in limit the number of companies, and give them inscrutable oversight. I do tend to favor a federal system just for the continuity of plans nation wide, maybe with the states using the federal funds in their own fashion, but that could get messy.
Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.
Well, I'm your basic weirdo Libertarian, so to my mind, the less federal involvement the better.
I know this is an odd stance for someone like me to take, a person who is moderate to conservative on most issues. But health care has gone down the proverbial dumper since it was taken over by the HMOs and the insurance companies, and unlike most goods and services, it should not be a part of the free market. It should be something we pay for as a society, like we do for police and fire protection, for roads and ambulance services, for schools and postal service.
Health care isn't a luxury; in a civilized society, it is a must. I don't have a problem with rich people being able to buy more and better care, but I do have a BIG problem with middle and lower income Americans being unable to go to the doctor when they need to because insurance companies have inflated the costs beyond anything the average family can afford. Even for those of us lucky enough to work for companies that provide health insurance, there are plenty of out-of-pocket expenses for doctor visits, meds, tests, hospitalization; for example, in 2005 my co-pays alone added up to over $10,000. That's a big chunk out of a $60,000-a-year income (that's before taxes).
And I know it's far worse for families who aren't as fortunate as ours, who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but nowhere near enough to be able to afford insurance. This is madness. There is no excuse for a nation as blessed and as wealthy as ours to allow 40+ million of its own citizens to do without health care. We are supposed to be a moral, decent society; but there is nothing moral or decent about a "system" of health care delivery that puts profits before patients and leaves the "care" part out entirely.
Aren't "WE the people" the government ? If we the people, voted those who we do not trust into the seat of power, should we not blame ourselves?
No. Not like YOU mean it. You mean, since the gov't is beholding to the people, can't the government do ANYTHING, in the name of the people? No. The government was specifically limited to prevent just what you propose.
When our framers said, 'We the People' what they meant was that we the people give government ONLY this much authority, and no more. The Constitution is FAR from the blank check you wish to cash.
Read the Federalist Papers and you will understand that this idea of mob rule that you favor so much was the BIGGEST concern of the framers. They went OUT OF THEIR WAY to limit such ideas. We are not a mob rule democracy. FOR THIS VERY REASON, to prevent what you propose, we are a limited Republic.
I trust them (Congress) a he!! of a lot more than I trust insurance company execs and flunkies ...
Why is that? Those insurance company execs and flunkies can only get away with what they are doing because the government has protected their market. They are in bed together.
Your insurance company can only do what it does because YOU are not their customer. Your employer is. Who gave these idiots the power to ignore you as a customer? The flunkies in the last Congress. And the one before that. And the next one.
I don't see any justification for differentiation. They (Congress and Big Insurance) are all one and the same.
AND NONE OF THEM HAVE YOUR BESTS INTERESTS AT HEART.
That's why I advocate a system of universal coverage that provides a basic package of health services for every US citizen and is administered at the state level. I think the states are in a much better position to decide what their populations need. I also would have this system administered by a panel of experts in the health, financial, and legal fields rather than politicians. All of the monies that are currently paid to the insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid would instead go into a fund that would provide every citizen with preventive care and basic health services. Those who are wealthier can always buy more coverage if they want it, and nobody would be allowed to "opt out" (like with auto insurance) so the contributions would come from the entire population---not just those who are employed or who can afford insurance premiums.
I'm sure there are a gazillion things wrong with this idea, but almost nothing can be worse than 40+ million uninsured and underinsured Americans. We need universal health care, and we need it sooner rather than later!
That is pretty much exactly what PNHP has proposed. Run it at the state level. Fund it federally administer it on the state level....
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
Unfortunately I don't think it will ever be perfect but we can do our best to make it better.
And then continue to improve.