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.
We can't continue to give people the choice not to pay for their healthcare. I realize you understand that healthcare is not free. My point is that we must hold recipients accountable for the services they utilize. We have to stop enabling deadbeats who take advantage of the ER, walk away without paying, and stick the taxpayers with the bill. The way to do that is to provide coverage that requires them to pay for the services they utilize. If they go unnecessarily to the ER, they pay big time. If they go to the clinic for more appropriate services, they pay a little. They don't get to walk away from either place without paying. They will either come to realize that services really aren't needed (for a cold), or that going to the clinic for a minor complaint is a better option than the ER where their financial responsibility will be much higher.
We can't force people to do the right thing (utilize the ER only when necessary), but we can and should take away the incentive that currently exists to do the wrong thing (utilize ER and other expensive services unnecessarily)! We remove the incentive to do the wrong thing when we hold individuals accountable for their healthcare spending.
I agree. But MSAs don't solve the problem of ERs not being able to enforce any kind of fee for their services for some people. If someone without many resources has emptied their MSA or has a high co-pay or a high deductible, they still might opt for the ER if they know they won't get charged.
The way I see it, abuse of ERs can be curbed by offering equivalent (and likely faster) service for *lower* cost in a clinic. But as long as ERs are the only facility where people can get service without prior payment AND escape any kind of billing, then of course, they will continue to go there.
Even UHC wouldn't solve that problem if clinics had a standard co-pay and ERs didn't and/or if clinic hours & locations didn't accomodate people who have work schedules that don't allow time off for day time appointments. If the clinic wait time is just as long as an ER, that also doesn't encourage clinic use.
i. but as long as ers are the only facility where people can get service without prior payment and escape any kind of billing, then of course, they will continue to go there.
quote]
that is at the heart of the matter. perhaps the "mandate to treat" laws need to modified, allowing er's to not treat non emergencies!!
if a patient with a cold or headache got to wait 7 hours to be given no meds and sent home with orders to go to their md or the free clinic, it would certainly discourage abuse.
publicado - published: 11/10/2007gainesville (debbie gilbert / the times).- what part of the word "emergency" do you not understand?
and a growing number of hospitals are now giving such patients an ultimatum: if you come to the er with a nonemergency, don't expect to get treated unless you pay up front.
here's how it works: patients who come into the er are evaluated by a physician. if their condition is a true emergency, federal law requires that they be treated, or at least stabilized so they can be transferred to another facility, regardless of their ability to pay.
"if the patient does not have an emergency, we recommend that they see a primary care doctor, and we give them a list of options in the community, including free or reduced-fee clinics," said duffy. "if they insist on being treated in the er, we will certainly do so, but they must pay either their insurance co-pay or a $150 deposit."
true emergencies include chest pain, trauma, severe bleeding, respiratory distress, stroke symptoms and other conditions that clearly require immediate attention.
"we are not turning anyone away," duffy said. "all emergencies will be treated, and physicians will always err on the side of caution."
"it's an issue that every hospital in georgia is grappling with," he said. "a lot of it is linked to the uninsured population, which is growing so fast."
"we have people who are habitual users of the er," she said. "but treating patients who are inappropriate just encourages them to come back next time."
"the regulations only say we have to triage and evaluate," she said.
"but since patients incur most of their expenses during the evaluation, most hospitals just end up treating them."
the cost of treating the uninsured has forced some hospitals nationwide to close their emergency departments. yet there is still a reluctance at many hospitals to redirect patients who are inappropriate for the er.
that reluctance is driven in part by fear of lawsuits. there's always a chance that a doctor may send a patient home, only to have that person turn out to have a real emergency. but bowers said more hospitals are now willing to take that chance.
"liability concerns are one of the reasons the systems has evolved as it has," she said. "but everything in medicine has some risk of liability. you have to balance that against the risk of using your resources on non-emergent care and not having it for those patients who have true emergencies."
THis is why I push the importance of helping patients spend their health care dollars effectively. We are far far better off providing first dollar coverage for care associated with chronic illness. Streamlined administrative cost savings can probably pay for this....
Specializes in Home Health, ICU,Rehab,Med-Surg,Hospice.
Universal Health care is socialized health care. The payment for this comes from all of us taxpayers. To use a health care system is not a right. If you don't work, you don't have money, if you don't have money you may not be able to get the sort of medical help you need at the time you need it. I believe that privately funded free clinics and/or hospitals are a great way to go and should be encouraged. To have the government become even MORE involved in our health care system is a nightmare I hope I don't have to live through.
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts