Healthcare burden growing

[NRSKarenRN]

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

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Most of the excess spending is administrative and profit.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

This is an argument for letting responsible employers "buy in" to Minnesota Care etc. Their business costs will be lower.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

This is a path to reducing the number of under and uninsured people.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[Jolie, BSN]

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.

Not true, as I cited in post #30

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

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

The data and evidence says otherwise on the world stage. The PNHP proposal does not call for "user fees." There is plenty of evidence available that shows our current system has significant barriers to access stemming from cost issues. Patients who deny care come in sicker and are more expensive to treat. All the objections and excuses in the world cannot hide the problems of under and uninsured patients.

From the PNHP FAQ:

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.

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

[Jolie, BSN]

You continue to cite the same funding scheme, which will cost participants upwards of 10% of their yearly income, as I clearly demonstrated in my previous post:

https://allnurses.com/forums/f195/mas...ml#post2523908

You mentioned "user fees" in your own post # 8 "Implement a modest user fee for urgent care..."

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

This funding scheme does not provide savings to many employers or employees.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

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:

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

The following slide illustrates how the burdens would be shared more equitably between businesses. Responsible employers would see a roughly 20 Bn dollar reduction in costs. Irresponsible large employers (eg Walmart) would pay a fair share into the system.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]