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.
I'd agree that the third-party payer system has contributed to the current issue of high medical costs.
However, I wouldn't just blame that on consumers not being consciencious. After all, if a doctor orders a test, do you really expect everyone be able to decide with clear understanding on whether or not it's worth it to them to pay for that test? Suppose they decide not to have that test done and then later discovered that they did have a problem that that test would've caught earlier? I guess they couldn't sue the doctor anyway. I'm not saying universal care would keep this kind of thing from happening, but free market doesn't completely solve the problem of "unnecessary" testing vs "covering one's... bases."
I don't think the high costs are only due to individuals not being aware of the charges for their health care. After all, insurance companies also have to look out for the bottom line and they certainly pressure providers to keep costs low, making and breaking contracts to get the best prices. As costs go up, they rigorously review claims to discourage unnecessary testing.
When premiums were fairly low, employers didn't mind so much footing the bill for health insurance coverage. And if you didn't have employer-sponsored insurance, you could afford a personal policy or afford to pay out of pocket. Things have been changing rapidly in the last decade or so. Out of pocket costs and premiums have increased and that causes stress both for employers and individuals.
On the other hand, it IS unrealistic if people think that it only costs $10 to see a doctor (and get personal care), to get a prescription filled, to have an x-ray, etc. For costs to be that low, there will be high premiums, restrictions on usage, tax-funded subsidies, poor quality care, and/or the like.
And it is true that people like to maximize their own benefit, so any system needs to be designed such that people are discouraged from abusing it. For example, you just know that there would be some people out there who would think to themselves, "Hm, I pay $50/month towards this free universal health system so even though I don't really feel sick, I'm gonna go see a doctor and get a prescription because, darnit, I already paid for it and otherwise I'm just throwing my money away!"
You might be able to buy a replacement car, but last time I checked, you cant buy yourself a replacement body. If free is the incentive that people need to get preventative care, then free it is.
Just because it is not coming directly out of your pocket doesn't make it free.
Just because it is not coming directly out of your pocket doesn't make it free.
That is true but when it is already taken from your check (or investment income for those who don't work) the decision on whether to take care of your B/P or diabetes is not economic.
Before anyone talks about universal healthcare, congress should be placing caps on malpractice lawsuits and how much money goes through the court systems brought on by ambulance chasing lawyers. Also, when will physicians start to grade their peers on performance. How many times do I have to care for a patient with a s/p sx infection after Dr "bad reputation" tx that patient. No way am I going to be comfortable with more restrictions at a time when I must closely watch even the physicians I mostly trust. There are too many broken spokes now, not the time to reinvent the wheel !
That is true but when it is already taken from your check (or investment income for those who don't work) the decision on whether to take care of your B/P or diabetes is not economic.
You got that right. I could by one hell of a health insurance policy with the money I paid to uncle sam. Not to mention a pretty good retirement investment with the money taken for social security.
ukrn...no I have not been able to read all threads, I do not have enough time. My opinion is just that, and what I mean is, I feel we do not need another vehicle for healthcare, especially one that will offer less care with more restrictions. This is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. What I feel has damaged our healthcare systems are the critical elements that are driving up our costs, those of which I spoke of. This is my opinions, as you have yours...
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
steelcityrn......I posted this link in another thread. I believe it is worthy of another mention on this thread. Please take a few minutes to read it, even if you don't like his politics. He makes many of the same points that I and other likeminded posters have made.
steelcityrn......I posted this link in another thread. I believe it is worthy of another mention on this thread. Please take a few minutes to read it, even if you don't like his politics. He makes many of the same points that I and other likeminded posters have made.
i do not buy the car analogy that john stossel uses
"after all, we don't buy auto insurance to pay for oil changes and worn-out windshield-wiper blades. but today, people expect medical insurance to cover routine physical exams because someone else seems to pay the premiums."
preventative care is cost effective care. you know that. compare the cost of antihypertensives to rehabilitation from a cva. no funny math there.
you might be able to buy a replacement car, but last time i checked, you cant buy yourself a replacement body. if free is the incentive that people need to get preventative care, then free it is.
i was part of a low income foot and ear care clinic for older adults yesterday. my classmates identified 2 potential new cases of dm. these people live on fixed incomes and were most assuredly in need of good preventive care that they did not access because of financial constraints.
the department of health and human services [hhs] found doctors order painful tests they consider unnecessary, for fear of being sued. and the majority of doctors say they recommended invasive procedures more often than they believed were medically necessary in an effort to prevent potential litigation.
stossel is apparently referring to a 2003 hhs paper. a quick look at that paper, however, reveals that hhs didn't "find" anything about doctors ordering tests; it merely cited a privately funded poll that did.
that harris poll interviewed 300 physicians online, as well as 100 nurses and 100 hospital administrators via telephone, and was commissioned by common good, an organization formed "to overhaul america's lawsuit culture" because "[f]ear of litigation has undermined our freedom to make sensible decisions. ... doctors, teachers, ministers, even little league coaches, find their daily decisions hampered by legal fear. our system of justice, long america's greatest pride, is now considered a tool for extortion, not balance."
in short, far from citing an official government study, as stossel claimed he was doing, he was actually citing a private poll paid for by an organization with a political agenda.
.thumb.gif.041bac93584716f6dc9882dcd8cf500a.gif){kind=small}
jjjoy, LPN
2,801 Posts
I'd agree that the third-party payer system has contributed to the current issue of high medical costs.
However, I wouldn't just blame that on consumers not being consciencious. After all, if a doctor orders a test, do you really expect everyone be able to decide with clear understanding on whether or not it's worth it to them to pay for that test? Suppose they decide not to have that test done and then later discovered that they did have a problem that that test would've caught earlier? I guess they couldn't sue the doctor anyway. I'm not saying universal care would keep this kind of thing from happening, but free market doesn't completely solve the problem of "unnecessary" testing vs "covering one's... bases."
I don't think the high costs are only due to individuals not being aware of the charges for their health care. After all, insurance companies also have to look out for the bottom line and they certainly pressure providers to keep costs low, making and breaking contracts to get the best prices. As costs go up, they rigorously review claims to discourage unnecessary testing.
When premiums were fairly low, employers didn't mind so much footing the bill for health insurance coverage. And if you didn't have employer-sponsored insurance, you could afford a personal policy or afford to pay out of pocket. Things have been changing rapidly in the last decade or so. Out of pocket costs and premiums have increased and that causes stress both for employers and individuals.
On the other hand, it IS unrealistic if people think that it only costs $10 to see a doctor (and get personal care), to get a prescription filled, to have an x-ray, etc. For costs to be that low, there will be high premiums, restrictions on usage, tax-funded subsidies, poor quality care, and/or the like.
And it is true that people like to maximize their own benefit, so any system needs to be designed such that people are discouraged from abusing it. For example, you just know that there would be some people out there who would think to themselves, "Hm, I pay $50/month towards this free universal health system so even though I don't really feel sick, I'm gonna go see a doctor and get a prescription because, darnit, I already paid for it and otherwise I'm just throwing my money away!"