Healthcare burden growing

Nurses Activism

Published

healthcare burden growing

nearly one-quarter of americans under 65--61.6 million people--live in families that will spend more than 10 percent of their income on healthcare in 2008, according to a report from families usa.

philadelphia inquirer, nov 29, 2007

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.

ingelin,

I read the CBS article. I can't get the other 2 to open (probably due to a glitch on my computer). It highlights one member's dissatisfaction with a Medicare Advantage program he voluntarily enrolled in. Some seniors desire these plans for their added benefits (dental and vision). He found the plan to be unworkable. The point is that he chose the plan, and come open enrollment-time, he can choose to go back to traditional Medicare. At the same time, there are other seniors who find Advantage plans to be superior to traditional Medicare. The system offers seniors choice and demands personal responsibility in paying premiums, selecting a plan (on a yearly basis), purchasing supplemental insurance, etc. I don't see that as a problem.

I'll look thru these while I eat my lunch. One point I'm trying to make is that Medicare is, in effect, a joint public/private venture. Beneficiaries are responsible for premuims, deductibles, co-pays, and in most cases, selecting and paying for supplemental insurance offered by private companies. So while the system is not completely privatized, there is a significant aspect of private insurance within Medicare. This allows Medicare beneficiaries some control over their plan and demands an element of personal responsibility, 2 things that seem to be lacking from most universal healthcare proposals. Just as you state that seniors do not want a fully privatized system, many of us do not want to be forced into a wholly government system of universal healthcare. Let us keep what works well for us, and work out a system to cover the uninsured that allows some freedom of choice and demands some personal accountability.
I do not endorse a mandated system in which people can not opt out of UHC.Health care access cannot be trusted to private endevors as is shown in the links Ive posted, BUT those who do not want UHC should not be forced to have it.When Social Security was first introduced, Americans were allowed to opt out, why not UHC too?
Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.

I think that you and I hold fundamentally different beliefs that will prevent us from ever agreeing on universal healthcare. You seem to inherently distrust private enterprise in favor of government. My beliefs are just the opposite. You raise an interesting point that SS was once a voluntary program, but no longer is. I expect that UHC will follow suit, with the government ultimately removing all choice from the program. Just one of many reasons I will fight against a nationwide government program.

Thanks for the debate!

I think that you and I hold fundamentally different beliefs that will prevent us from ever agreeing on universal healthcare. You seem to inherently distrust private enterprise in favor of government. My beliefs are just the opposite. You raise an interesting point that SS was once a voluntary program, but no longer is. I expect that UHC will follow suit, with the government ultimately removing all choice from the program. Just one of many reasons I will fight against a nationwide government program.

Thanks for the debate!

I can only trust a government by the people for the people, not a government by the special interests for the corporate elite, your welcome.

Who do you think will be running government sponsored healthcare? Lobbyists of course. The left constantly complains how drug companies run Medicare PartD. Why do you not think special interests will get their way with any government healthcare legislation?

I can only trust a government by the people for the people, not a government by the special interests for the corporate elite, your welcome.
Who do you think will be running government sponsored healthcare? Lobbyists of course. The left constantly complains how drug companies run Medicare PartD. Why do you not think special interests will get their way with any government healthcare legislation?
The government,the people we VOTED into office.Different government, different ethics.
Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
The government,the people we VOTED into office.Different government, different ethics.

The make-up of that government changes to some extent every 2 years. If you mis-trust the current holders of elected office (President, House and Senate), what makes you think that future combinations of these elected officials will be any "better"? You may get a President and Congress that you like in the next election, and then see them voted out of office within 2-4 years, in favor of officials whom you don't trust. It seems risky to trust your healthcare to government when the "wrong" people are likely to be in charge at least 1/2 of the time.

The make-up of that government changes to some extent every 2 years. If you mis-trust the current holders of elected office (President, House and Senate), what makes you think that future combinations of these elected officials will be any "better"? You may get a President and Congress that you like in the next election, and then see them voted out of office within 2-4 years, in favor of officials whom you don't trust. It seems risky to trust your healthcare to government when the "wrong" people are likely to be in charge at least 1/2 of the time.
Hmmm... I dont think any president has been as "WRONG" for America as the Bush administration has, in a long long time and hopefully we have collectively learned a hard lesson. As for the Senate and House, if the majority can stay Democratic I wont worry as much.
that's interesting. according to figures hm2viking posted in another thread promoting universal healthcare, families would likely pay more than 10% of their income in premiums and other out of pocket costs for a nationalized plan. this puts things in better perspective.

absolutely inaccurate attribution to me.

i have cited this (which is considerably less than 10%):

a universal public system would be financed this way: the public financing already funneled to medicare and medicaid would be retained. the difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). the payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. the income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. for the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. it is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes accessed today.

we can and must do better with our health care dollars from both a quality and equity of access perspective.

mirrormirror_figurees1.gif

see also:

506946.gif

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/chartcartcharts/chartcartcharts_show.htm?doc_id=506946&attrib_id=14465 accesed 12/7/07.

as usual the evidence is better care at lower cost.

I do not endorse a mandated system in which people can not opt out of UHC.Health care access cannot be trusted to private endevors as is shown in the links Ive posted, BUT those who do not want UHC should not be forced to have it.When Social Security was first introduced, Americans were allowed to opt out, why not UHC too?

To fix the system I think we have to adopt a "pay or play" policy for businesses. In other words provide group insurance purchased on the open market or buy insurance from FEHP or the various state plans. I also think that we need to open the MN Care's etc to enrollment by subscription for businesses and private individuals.

607895.gif

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
Absolutely inaccurate attribution to me.

Not an inaccurate attribution. Just simple math, as I demonstrated in the following thread:

https://allnurses.com/forums/f195/massachusetts-health-plan-trouble-264327-3.html#post2523908

(posts #30, #7, #10)

9% payroll taxes plus "user fees" will most definitely amount to at least 10% of a worker's income, and will have the greatest impact on the working poor who currently pay no insurance premiums, and will see a reduction in wages equal to the 7% payroll employer tax plus their own 2% obligation. Face it, Viking the 7% tax "paid by the employer" will be money directly out of the employee's pocket. If the employer didn't have to contribute 7% of an employee's income to universal healthcare, he could afford to pay the money directly to the employee instead. It's just like SS taxes now. Employees who believe that their employer pays 6.2% "for them" and they pay the other 6.2% are ill-informed and naive. The employee is losing a full 12.4% of his/her pay to SS, since the employer must reduce salaries by 6.2 % in order to afford the taxes.

The point remains that responsible employers who have paid for health care for their employees will pay no more than they currently pay for their employees and probably will pay less. Irresponsible employers who have not provided health care (and I am not calling small business owners irresponsible as this comment is directed towards the WalMarts and Home Depots) will have to pay into the system to obtain affordable and effective health care for their employees.

+ Add a Comment