After posting the piece about Nurses traveling to Germany and reading the feedback. I would like to open up a debate on this BB about "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payor Systems"
In doing this I hope to learn more about each side of the issue. I do not want to turn this into a heated horrific debate that ends in belittling one another as some other charged topics have ended, but a genuine debate about the Pros and Cons of proposed "Universal Health Care or Single Payor systems" I believe we can all agree to debate and we can all learn things we might not otherwise have the time to research.
I am going to begin by placing an article that discusses the cons of Universal Health Care with some statistics, and if anyone is willing please come in and try to debate some of the key points this brings up. With stats not hyped up words or hot air. I am truly interested in seeing the different sides of this issue. This effects us all, and in order to make an informed decision we need to see "all" sides of the issue. Thanks in advance for participating.
Michele
I am going to have to post the article in several pieces because the bulletin board only will allow 3000 characters.So see the next posts.
Maybe I am missing something and if so please feel free to point it out. It seems that all I hear about HMOs is how bad they are at providing care and limiting patient choice in favor of getting forms filled out but some people want to create a giant HMO run by the government (the most inefficient beuracracy in history), put them in charge of patient care choices and eliminate any real competition. How does any of this equal better care or more freedom for the consumers?
Timothy, it's health insurance that is killing them. It's the fact that despite what you want to believe, this country pays far more for health coverage than other industrialized nations per person. How does this translate iinto institutionalized failures? Have you given up your health insurance in order to pay out of pocket for your own coverage? I bet not. Why not?
First, my healthcare insurance IS an out of pocket expense.
2nd, of course I wouldn't 'give it up'? Why would I give up a working model for less, which is, of course, my point.
And if you don't believe that such a system isn't a 'failure' in the wrong hands, then why are you advocating changing it?
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
I also don't want to pay the exhorbant taxes that comes with Universal Healthcare.
I don't want to pay exorbitant taxes either. Nor do I want to pay exorbitant health care costs when I am financing care for others that is not available to me or my family (at the moment). Taxes or premiums you are still paying.
I'm just wondering how much you pay for your private sector health care including premiums, co-pays and prescriptions. Last year we claimed over $11,000 for medical and dental expenses for our 2005 taxes. I pay $375 a month for health insurance coverage (PPO $500 deductible per person)through my job, plus prescriptions plus copays - so lets say my health care costs can run on average between $500 -$950 a month depending on how much my family of four are using the insurance. I know people that are paying over $1000 a month for a family of three just for the health insurance premiums.
I looked at some estimates for the cost to the consumer of universal health care. One website by Physicians for a National Health Program suggested financing healthcare by a a payroll tax on employers (7%) and by an income tax on individuals (2%) which would cover the costs of premiums plus copays/deductibles. So if you compare the cost of my family's healthcare with private insurance $11,000 to 2% of our joint income last year of $70,000 = $1,400. Therefore, if we had had universal health care available last year we would have had at least $9,000 more in our bank account, but probably not for too long.
First, my healthcare insurance IS an out of pocket expense.
2nd, of course I wouldn't 'give it up'? Why would I give up a working model for less, which is, of course, my point.
And if you don't believe that such a system isn't a 'failure' in the wrong hands, then why are you advocating changing it?
~faith,
Timothy.
Timothy, are you self-employed? Do you not have insurance with your employer? I thought you were a nurse working at a hospital?
What you are paying when you are employed, is a PARTIAL cost of a group discount. It's not the entire thing. It's part of your salary that the hospital pays for you. You don't pay the entire cost.
If you think your premium is high now, try getting equal coverage privately.
I don't have insurance right now for one reason...what an independent insurance policy right now would cost me is too expensive for me to even bother. In the past, I refused to take a job with an employer that didn't have good health insurance.
Specializes in Critical Care, Cardiothoracics, VADs.
Well, my mom is waiting well over two months for "elective" knee replacement.
I still don't believe people are dying waiting for care in Europe any more than they are in the US. That's been a myth told to us to scare us commies away from thinking we need some type of basic single payer medical coverage in this country.
I do understand there are difficulties in most "systems". I don't believe it's CAUSED by the government tho. I am not a raging socialist/communist. I beleive there are certain things that a civilized society believes it's citizens should have access to. No matter what, there are going to be people in ANY society that will not be able to "swim". Claiming that the governement paying a fee to a privately run health care system for coverage for all citizens means that the leeches will surface doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Actually, you quoted me but I never said anyone was "dying waiting for care in Europe".
I also said that I think our socialised system is better than the alternative.
I don't want to pay exorbitant taxes either. Nor do I want to pay exorbitant health care costs when I am financing care for others that is not available to me or my family (at the moment). Taxes or premiums you are still paying.
I'm just wondering how much you pay for your private sector health care including premiums, co-pays and prescriptions. Last year we claimed over $11,000 for medical and dental expenses for our 2005 taxes. I pay $375 a month for health insurance coverage (PPO $500 deductible per person)through my job, plus prescriptions plus copays - so lets say my health care costs can run on average between $500 -$950 a month depending on how much my family of four are using the insurance. I know people that are paying over $1000 a month for a family of three just for the health insurance premiums.
I looked at some estimates for the cost to the consumer of universal health care. One website by Physicians for a National Health Program suggested financing healthcare by a a payroll tax on employers (7%) and by an income tax on individuals (2%) which would cover the costs of premiums plus copays/deductibles. So if you compare the cost of my family's healthcare with private insurance $11,000 to 2% of our joint income last year of $70,000 = $1,400. Therefore, if we had had universal health care available last year we would have had at least $9,000 more in our bank account, but probably not for too long.
So do the math -how much would you save?
The last job I had...I paid $189 a month for my daughter and I pre-taxed for BC/BS of NC. When I had my daughter, out of over $130K in medical expenses my cost was: $0
It's something I specifically look for when I look for a job. I ask for the full details on health insurance and how the policies work at the interview. I have turned down more than one job that had crappy policies with fly-by-night companies that wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
I always get the highest coverage a company offers, if they offer a choice.
When I was pregnant, if I had selected the policy that was one tier down, I would be in debt right now for almost $30K.
I have never had to pay a hospital bill in my life that was over $150.
Any thoughts on minimizing the HMO/co-pay health insurance model and emphasizing catastrophic insurance and high deductibles? The thought behind that is that people would be paying out-of-pocket for basic health care costs, creating an incentive to find the best deal. Health care providers would then be in competition for these patients, lowering prices to be more attractive - instead of having to deal with insurance companies that force them to accept ridiculously low reimbursements and increase their charges in an effort to recoup more money. Health care providers could work out their own payment systems and special deals (eg yearly wellness package for a set amount). In this scenario, I imagine also a low-interest loan industry developing specifically to help cover bigger costs (eg MRI, emergency room visit). Once someone has paid, say, $10,000 out of pocket, the health insurance kicks in. $10,000 sounds like a lot, but it's a repayable amount if you could spread out low interest payments. I'm just pulling that number out of the air, but the idea is that individuals are responsible for their basic health care costs and health providers compete to provide that, but for those who end up with astronomical costs, it's covered.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
It has everything to do with communism....... In reality, people are driven by incentives: what's in it for me. That's always been the case. The real study of economics is the study of human incentives. EVERYTIME you remove those incentives, what you get is inefficiency, disrepect, and abuse of such systems. Look at medicaid. Look at the respect that those that have their services provided for them give to those services. It just creates an ever more 'entitlement' mentality................ communism .............The problem with your 'socialized' medicine is that it removes the incentive to both use the system well......... 'Socializing' it is indeed and attempt to move the balance of our economy to communistic principles............. Everywhere socialized medicine is in play, what you see is long lines, disgruntled workers, rules that necessarily must be enforced to ration care, and a push by those that can afford it to bypass the system. You create just another 'the rich get richer scheme' with socialized medicine only now, only the very well off can afford to seek real and timely care.
There you go again with your scare tactics -
1.COMMUNISM: we've already covered that one - enough already with the C word.
2. INEFFICIENCY - our current system is inefficient - we pay way too much for healthcare in return for little effect on Public Health -we spend substantially more on health care than other industrialized countries with substantially higher infant mortality rates and substantially lower life expectancies.
3. ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM -I work in the ER, I see it every day. You are still going to get abuse out of the system however it is financed - I repeat, you are not going to solve this by denying universal health care. From my experience abuse of the system is related to poor socioeconomic status and lack of education, along with a few other problems eg. addiction for one. For example, I (RN with PPO insurance) will not take my child to the ER for a full workup for a complaint of abdominal pain after my son has told me he did a thousand sit-ups yesterday, compared with Girlfriend of Baby Daddy who thinks that this is an appropriate use of a busy ER ("He got MediCal, don't he?").
4. COMMUNISM -see #1
5. LACK OF INCENTIVE TO USE THE SYSTEM WELL: See #3. As for me I think the threat of premature death or being sentenced to a long life in a nursing home at the mercy of caregivers with "pink-pads" and well-meaning activity directors who force me to play bingo is enough of an incentive to take care of my health.
6. DISGRUNTLED WORKERS - Sorry, I believe that workers are already disgruntled. I believe that it has something to do with not being in a union. Once upon a time I was not in a union, and I was a very disgruntled nurse. One day I had the opportunity to join the union. Thank you, I feel much better now, not so disgruntled. I highly recommend it.
7. RATIONING OF CARE - Surprise! - it's already being rationed. 45 million don't have health insurance, Medicare/ Medicaid is rationed to only those who qualify. Rationing of health care is here to stay - healthcare is not an infinite resource -it has to be rationed. Rationing would be reduced with a more efficient use of resources.
8. ONLY THE RICH CAN SEEK TIMELY CARE - I think we already have that - I don't see too many poor 50 year olds rushing to get a facelift. It's time but they still can't afford it.
Because, as the 20th century amply showed, communism doesn't work, anywhere it's tried.
As far as looking for a model similar to our public school system: that system is fundamentally broken. If you doubt that, look at how many American parents opt out of that system. And look how our public school students compare to those educated practically anywhere else.
When you play to the lowest common denominator, what you get is the lowest common demoninator.
Oh, and ask the NHS nurses in the UK what THEY think about their wonderful system.
But, here's hoping that Hillary burns herself on this third rail again.
"Close enough for government work" just isn't a phrase most people want associated with their health.
quote
And yet, that's what we get, nevertheless. Mediocrity. And have to pay to get it.
I dont' think our schools are totally terrible. It depends largely on how wealthey the community is where the school is located.
And anothe thought: Soon we will all be going to India for healthcare so all this talk will be moot.
I agree. I also think Doctors get overpaid. Now, don't get me wrong, I 100% believe in them being at the top of the income food chain...they spend alot of hours in school, alot of hours in residency, alot of hours working. They deserve to live at an above average life.
However, like for example, both times when my mother had triple bypass surgery...the bills were around (and this was the negotiated rates by the insurance company) $60K each.
Why? She only spent 5 days in the hospital both times.
Organ transplants...I have seen figures over $100,000....why? The organ is free!!!!! Why should a doctor that performs a life-saving procedure be able to charge massive amounts for the work? Do I think he should be able to make ALOT? Absolutely! I just think what they are charging is getting out of control.
Believe it or not, doctors make less than lots of insurance company executives and other people who are not doctors. Doctors don't make that much. But I don't believe that anyone, including doctors, should be at the top of the income food chain. I think we all should be there. Why not? You and I and the work we do are just as important as any doctor or person in business.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
Soon we will all be going to India for healthcare so all this talk will be moot.
Just what we need to boost our economy - more outsourcing of jobs to the global market - NOT! So by then we'll not have a job, so we won't have the health insurance benefits that go with it and so the steady decline of our society continues. What then, naysayers - what then?
To answer Timothy's earlier question: Yes, I do think Timothy -- and all taxpayers -- should be required to foot the bill for a universal payer system. Just as we require Timothy -- and all other taxpayers -- to foot the bill now for public schools, the roads we drive on, etc.
You've got to do the math: If this system could save $200 billion a year, think about how much money that would free up for the taxpayers.
As for whether universal payer would make the price of a GM automobile go down by $1,000, I suggest that yes, it would: The big 3 are being creamed by foreign competition, and as I noted earlier, that foreign competition -- Toyota -- is building its new plant in Canada to take advantage of its national health care system for workers.
So who loses? If you're hung up on whether universal payer would make the price of a car go down, I say yes, it would. And consider all the taxes we've lost by seeing those Toyota jobs go to Canada. It's a global economy. Our health care system is harming American businesses, and not just automakers.
But beyond the economics, I ask this: Why would a nurse disagree with the notion that the most vulnerable people in our society are entitled to health care? Why should health care be only for the privileged?
.thumb.gif.041bac93584716f6dc9882dcd8cf500a.gif){kind=small}
antihippie
34 Posts
Maybe I am missing something and if so please feel free to point it out. It seems that all I hear about HMOs is how bad they are at providing care and limiting patient choice in favor of getting forms filled out but some people want to create a giant HMO run by the government (the most inefficient beuracracy in history), put them in charge of patient care choices and eliminate any real competition. How does any of this equal better care or more freedom for the consumers?