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.
Creation of a national healthcare agency would equate to the creation of a monopoly the likes of which has not been seen since the breakup of the Bell Corporation. Of course, we all know what happened when that corporation was broken up. More phone companies were created, competition began, phone service improved across the board, and ultimately prices went down. Creation of one, monolithic health care agency would eliminate all competition, meaning that one agency could set payments, both for how much the individual paid in and for how much it chose to reimburse. There would be no competition, and therefore no incentive to keep premiums down. And perhaps worst of all, you would give this monopoly force of law, so that no person could choose to opt out, no provider could choose to say I won't accept patients on this plan. As I said before, we all get the healthcare equivalent of Chevy Cavalier coverage, with no options for anything else. And you consider this to be progressive?
Using that same logic, state legislators here in GA deregulated the natural gas industry about 10 years ago leaving consumers at the mercy of natural gas marketers. Service did not improve, in fact there were many, many cases of spotty service and billing snafus and there was no reduction of prices at all. In fact, many saw their bills rise drastically and many senior citizens found themselves with bills they were unable to pay. It was such a disaster that they put the brakes on electricity deregulation entirely and there has even been talk of reregulating the industry.
You talk about competition being best, well in theory there is no doubt that you are right. But for some reason, it doesn't always work like that. It's like the nursing shortage and competition for nurses didn't raise salaries dramatically nor did it result in better working conditions for millions of nurses.
I think it interesting that you call yourself a progressive, yet what you advocate is regressive. Creation of a national healthcare agency would equate to the creation of a monopoly the likes of which has not been seen since the breakup of the Bell Corporation. Of course, we all know what happened when that corporation was broken up. More phone companies were created, competition began, phone service improved across the board, and ultimately prices went down. Creation of one, monolithic health care agency would eliminate all competition, meaning that one agency could set payments, both for how much the individual paid in and for how much it chose to reimburse. There would be no competition, and therefore no incentive to keep premiums down. And perhaps worst of all, you would give this monopoly force of law, so that no person could choose to opt out, no provider could choose to say I won’t accept patients on this plan. As I said before, we all get the healthcare equivalent of Chevy Cavalier coverage, with no options for anything else. And you consider this to be progressive?
I’d really like to see you address the issue of the creation of an all-powerful monopoly. I’d like you to demonstrate how, or even why, this monopoly, faced with no competition, would work to keep prices down. While you are at it, I’d like you also to address the fact that since this monopoly would be controlled by the government, what incentive it would have to keep red tape down, how it would be forced to be responsive to the people. Talk about elected officials all you want, remember that the employees of this organization will not be elected, but will instead be government employees. We all know how responsive they are. They can’t be fired, and they know it. They also would know that no matter how angry you might get at their inaction, there won’t be a damn thing you can do about it, because you have no other options.
And while you are addressing things, since you trust our government so much, would you please address the questions I asked in the last post? I really am interested in your answers. Here they are again:
-When news of the warrantless wiretapping program was leaked, I infer you immediately, out of trust for the government, assumed that they were acting in a constitutionally correct manner.
-With the passage of the PATRIOT Act, I infer you immediately assumed it was nothing more than a bill designed to streamline our antiterrorism activities, without violating our constitutional rights.
My point is this: Many of you keep repeating the mantra "we must have a universal health care plan." But when presented with real, valid objections to such a plan, you ignore them, and continue to repeat the mantra. I’ve raised several objections to such a plan. Most of those objections have not even been addressed, and your arguments for those you did address ended up being stronger arguments in favor of my position.
I’ll even be happy to go back over all my posts in this thread, and come up with one post in which my objections are outlined. But I will only do so if at least one of you promises to address these objections directly. Otherwise, you are forced to admit that my objections are valid. Does not mean you must abandon your position, just that there are valid objections over such a plan, and these should be addressed before we charge headlong into the establishment of a national program that I see has the potential to be a disaster.
It is not that your objections are not valid or not heard. You have raised very legitimate objections. But as the spinsters say "At the end of the day"...I believe that the common good of the many outweigh the luxuries of the few.
Sharon described what happened with deregulation in Georgia. The same happened in California. Us liberals in Los Angeles lobbied our local elected officials to keep our Department of Water and Power. When others electricity rates increased as much as ten times ours stayed the same. An $80.00 bill didn't become $800.00.
"In 1996, Gov. Pete Wilson and legislators from both parties enthusiastically pushed through a plan to deregulate energy in California. They promised huge savings for consumers in reduced rates. As everyone knows, it didn't quite work out.
Instead, there were huge increases in prices and reduced supplies, followed by blackouts affecting millions of Californians. There was a near-bankruptcy for the state and a recall election. Enron and others made millions, until the roof caved in.
Then, as now in health care, the private market was touted as the solution, a fool's gold that became a nightmare. Let's not let it happen again". - Malinda Markowitz, RN
In regard to passgasser's fear that all health care choices will be taken away and everyone will be forced to use one cookie cutter government-run health provider...
I think most people in favor of some sort of universal health care system also support allowing people to choose to pay out of pocket to go outside of the universal system, and allowing health service providers the option of serving private-pay patients.
Yes, your tax dollars would then be paying for a service you're not using. I don't think that's so horrible, though. It would basically be your insurance. If you came across hard times and found yourself unable to pay to go out of the universal system, you would be able to turn to the universal system. There might be a waitlist or last year's technology, but when you can't afford any health care out of pocket, that's better than nothing. Then, when you can afford it again, you can pay the higher rates to access care outside of the universal system.
In regard to passgasser's fear that all health care choices will be taken away and everyone will be forced to use one cookie cutter government-run health provider...
I think most people in favor of some sort of universal health care system also support allowing people to choose to pay out of pocket to go outside of the universal system, and allowing health service providers the option of serving private-pay patients.
Yes, your tax dollars would then be paying for a service you're not using. I don't think that's so horrible, though. It would basically be your insurance. If you came across hard times and found yourself unable to pay to go out of the universal system, you would be able to turn to the universal system. There might be a waitlist or last year's technology, but when you can't afford any health care out of pocket, that's better than nothing. Then, when you can afford it again, you can pay the higher rates to access care outside of the universal system.
Do you realize that there are people who are turned down for medical procedures that are desperatly needed, by these private insurance companies? .
Funny, I have worked for no less than 5 private insurance companies and the only medical procedures that I know of that were ever denied were experimental, investigational, or cosmetic. Our patients get their needs met in every way. We save our money on bed days, in that if the hospital is doing skilled level of care, they get paid at a skilled level. The patient is never billed for the balance.
I think that if people are going to spout rhetoric, they should back it up with facts.
In regard to passgasser's fear that all health care choices will be taken away and everyone will be forced to use one cookie cutter government-run health provider...
I think most people in favor of some sort of universal health care system also support allowing people to choose to pay out of pocket to go outside of the universal system, and allowing health service providers the option of serving private-pay patients.
Yes, your tax dollars would then be paying for a service you're not using. I don't think that's so horrible, though. It would basically be your insurance. If you came across hard times and found yourself unable to pay to go out of the universal system, you would be able to turn to the universal system. There might be a waitlist or last year's technology, but when you can't afford any health care out of pocket, that's better than nothing. Then, when you can afford it again, you can pay the higher rates to access care outside of the universal system.
The problem with this idea is that universal healthcare advocates a 'cost neutral' switch to gov't financing. What this means is the amount people are paying in insurance now is switched to higher taxes and the dubious cost savings from the gov't takeover could then extend coverage to everybody.
The end result is that those that are paying for health insurance now would be paying every bit as much or more in taxes for the new system. In order to secure private coverage, those individuals would be forced to pay dramatically higher costs for care then they do now (since the costs they are paying now would be completely offset by increased taxes.)
Even IF the gov't plan allowed for private insurance, something most advocates claim remains unfair and so would be outlawed (Hillary's plan would have outlawed private coverage), it would mean that only those truly well off would have access to that care, while the rest of us, due to the tax burden necessary to pay for this system, would be required to accept the lessor coverage of universal care.
By requiring a buy in to nationalized care, the scheme would make it cost prohibitive for the masses to seek alternatives. The result is an unfair gov't run monopoly that preys on the middle class. It's a nice sentiment to suggest that choice could still be had, but the reality would be much different.
Funny, I have worked for no less than 5 private insurance companies and the only medical procedures that I know of that were ever denied were experimental, investigational, or cosmetic. Our patients get their needs met in every way. We save our money on bed days, in that if the hospital is doing skilled level of care, they get paid at a skilled level. The patient is never billed for the balance.
I think that if people are going to spout rhetoric, they should back it up with facts.
I cannot violate HIPPA with documented proof unless the victims are willing to go public. These are from just one consumer organization.
You think universal healthcare would solve these problems? Not only would these types of problems increase dramatically, the gov't would claim 'sovereign immunity' protections against paying out damages. THAT is the one area where costs would improve with a national plan: you can't sue the gov't.
But truly, is it really a benefit that gov't healthcare will save money because nobody would have recourse against neglect?
As an example, the recent 8gm dilantin OD in Florida that killed the 43 yr old woman: the husband accepted 300k in damages because the hospital was a state owned County hospital and had sovereign immunity against higher damages.
I'm not claiming universal health care is the best option. I was just commenting on the fear that an individual would have no choice but to use the universal system. The price to go outside of universal care would likely go up but the right to choose would still be there. Some could argue that what good is that right when it's too expensive to take advantage of? But that's exactly how many people feel in the current system.
As it is, one can choose to buy a health plan for their family but at several hundreds of dollars/month. A prohibitive cost for many. On the other hand, they can pay out of pocket, with a simple visit resulting in a simple test and a basic prescription costing several hundreds of dollars. Also prohibitive. If they make "too much" money, they won't qualify for assistance and thus will be billed at full cost for any service they receive, including ER visits.
Again, I'm not saying universal health care is the best way to make health care more afforable and accessible but you can see why it's appealing. I can see the potential pitfalls of universal care. But I can also see that no insurance company that cares about it's bottom line is going to willingly cover people who will likely heavily use health services. H
Many will suffer without certain expensive treatments or care. Yet there's no profit to made in offering insurance to people with known heavy health care costs or those at high-risk. I'm not sure how to tackle this issue, though I don't think we should protect people's inheritances if they are receiving major tax-provided care.
The deregulation in Cali was not the cause of the blackouts; it was because that while the population grew, liberals refused to allow any new sources of energy to be built.
I went through your list of links, to stories that mostly referred to vague procedures not named, and many cases went outside the "network" where the insurance company is expected to pay whatever the out of network hospital bills, and in some cases listed, required the money up front. In order to keep premiums as low as possible, HMO's contract with certain hospitals and dr groups and those providers agree to a set fee for services provided or per member per month. I don't see any outright denials in your list, except for cases where the money was required "up front" I still do not see your rhetoric backed up with facts. These are very vague references and in each case I can see why there were delays.
SharonH, RN
2,144 Posts
Using that same logic, state legislators here in GA deregulated the natural gas industry about 10 years ago leaving consumers at the mercy of natural gas marketers. Service did not improve, in fact there were many, many cases of spotty service and billing snafus and there was no reduction of prices at all. In fact, many saw their bills rise drastically and many senior citizens found themselves with bills they were unable to pay. It was such a disaster that they put the brakes on electricity deregulation entirely and there has even been talk of reregulating the industry.
You talk about competition being best, well in theory there is no doubt that you are right. But for some reason, it doesn't always work like that. It's like the nursing shortage and competition for nurses didn't raise salaries dramatically nor did it result in better working conditions for millions of nurses.