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.
Specializes in Med-Surg/Cardiac/Surgical Stepdown.
This thread is pretty much dead, considering no one has posted here in quite sometime until yesterday, but I just wanna "stir the pot" one more time.
Why can't we borrow a fnancing idea from the credit unions and utility co-ops? Member-owned, non-profit mutual insurance companies. That way everyone would have at least some power to control the governance of thier insurnace company through annual meetings and trustee elections. Greatly reducing the potential to spend large amount of money on fat-cat salaries, corporate waste, and big $$$ bonuses. If the company's leadership is dependent on an annual vote of confidence from their customers, then they tend to be less likely throw money around the way for-profit execs do. One big problem with this though is that it would be difficult to raise the millions of dollars needed for startup capital. You would need to either lobby the state for the funds or have some combination of employer contributions and charitable donations.
(3) TERMS.--Each member shall be appointed for a term of 6 years, except that the President shall stagger the terms of members initially appointed so that the term of no more than 3 members expires in any year.
(4) PROHIBITION ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.--No member of the Board shall have a financial conflict of interest with the duties before the Board.
(b) DUTIES.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Board shall meet at least twice per year and shall advise the Secretary
and the Director on a regular basis to ensure quality, access, and affordability.
(2) SPECIFIC ISSUES.--The Board shall specifically address the following issues:
sacramento, calif. - gov. arnold schwarzenegger on monday proposed extending health coverage to california's 6.5 million uninsured residents, promising to spread the cost among businesses, individuals, hospitals, insurers and the government.
schwarzenegger said his plan will save $10 billion a year by cutting costs and redirecting money already in the health care system.
"my solution is that everyone in california must have health insurance," the governor said. "if you can't afford it, the state will help you buy it. but you must be insured. that is number one."
under schwarzenegger's plan, all californians would be required to have insurance, although plans for the poorest people would be subsidized. businesses with 10 or more employees would have to offer insurance to workers or pay 4 percent of their payroll into a state fund. smaller businesses would be exempt....
I am an RN originally from Canada and have been working in the US for three years, and adjusting to the health care system here both professionally and personally has been rather diffficult. Having been a pt and a nurse on both sides of the border, it has been my experience that socialized medicine is the way to go. In Canada, I never saw the things I see here as far hopital bills, pt's being refused by MD's etc. The health care system here is a mess..
the california nurses association today said it welcomed the decision of gov. arnold schwarzenegger to address the state's escalating healthcare crisis. but, said cna president deborah burger, the sum of his proposals may ultimately amount to "little more than a fresh coat of paint on a collapsing house."...
… Those earning more than 2 1/2 times the federal poverty level — a total of $41,500 a year for a family of three — would not receive a subsidy but would still have to buy insurance if their employer did not offer it. The cheapest plan would require families to pay $2,000 a year in premiums, and as much as $10,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs.
"By setting this as a minimum, the tendency will be to undermine and reduce the current level offered by some employers, who will use this to justify reducing their benefits much more," said E. Richard Brown, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research…
I am an RN originally from Canada and have been working in the US for three years, and adjusting to the health care system here both professionally and personally has been rather diffficult. Having been a pt and a nurse on both sides of the border, it has been my experience that socialized medicine is the way to go. In Canada, I never saw the things I see here as far hopital bills, pt's being refused by MD's etc. The health care system here is a mess..
That is interesting - this afternoon I heard a woman who was from Austrailia and New Zealand talk about how bad universal health care is and how much better healthcare is in America.
I did hear something today - about if you don't go to the doc for every little stubbed toe and sore throat you can have reduced health insurance costs. I'm all for a higher deductible and lower monthly payments.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
I don't have much time to post but I did want to say "Thank you Arnie for trying". It might not be the answer to all of our healthcare problems, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
Governor Schwarzenegger does seem to be trying. he no longer uses lines from his movies.
I hope he pays attention to what people truly need, but considering healthcare corporations and insurance companies paid for his inagural party I fear they have his attention more than nurses and others who are the real providers of care.
Healthcare packages all inferior, except for one
By Deborah Burger, RN
January 10, 2007
With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unwrapping his long-anticipated healthcare package Monday and talk about reform building in Sacramento, Californians may well be wonder if our long healthcare nightmare is finally coming to an end.
Sadly, virtually none of the proposals now being touted in the Capitol is universal, strengthens quality of care or reduces rising costs to consumers…
…Here's 10 ways a similar, single-payer-type system, would benefit all Californians, not only those who profit in healthcare:
1. Everybody in, nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period — the desire of 81 percent of all Californians, as reported in a recent Field Poll.
2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed or lose or change your job, your health coverage goes with you.
3. Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Moped plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One standardized level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single-payer system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected, and societal cost in the overutilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers or hospital you can use. Under a single-payer system, patients have a choice and the provider is assured a fair reimbursement.
6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the autonomy to make decisions on what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.
7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every healthcare dollar in California goes for paperwork, such as denying you care, and profits, compared to about 3 percent under Medicare, a single-payer, universal system.
8. Cost savings. Numerous studies suggest a single-payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57 percent to 97 percent with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.
9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate healthcare is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high-priced CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation packages or stocks.
While our politicians debate inferior alternatives, it's up to all of us to insist that Californians deserve the best…
Specializes in Med-Surg/Cardiac/Surgical Stepdown.
A second, third and fourth opinion on healthcare
... Those earning more than 2 1/2 times the federal poverty level-a total of $41,500 a year for a family of three-would not receive a subsidy but would still have to buy insurance if their employer did not offer it. The cheapest plan would require families to pay $2,000 a year in premiums, and as much as $10,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs.
"By setting this as a minimum, the tendency will be to undermine and reduce the current level offered by some employers, who will use this to justify reducing their benefits much more," said E. Richard Brown, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research...
And another gapping hole in proposals such as this is what happens to that family of three when the dad has to have heart surgery and the insurance company jacks the premiums for their coverage up by 100-300% per month, and it is now illegal for the family to drop coverage and almost impossible to find a better price anywhere else?
Even though the governator's proposal supposedly includes protections against "cherry-picking" customers and outlandish increases I seriously doubt that the laws would offer substantive consumer protection, considering that it doesn't include a cap on what base premiums can be charged and the government subsidy is based on the entirely unrealistic federal poverty standards.
.thumb.gif.041bac93584716f6dc9882dcd8cf500a.gif){kind=small}
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
Eight different ideas:
January 4, 2007
The Paths to Universal Health Care (8 Letters)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/opinion/l04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print