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.
BY COMPARSION - a gov't (NHS) that fails to meet a standard of EIGHTEEN WEEKS to see a specialist is an abject/dismal failure to my ability to see a specialist, tomorrow.
~faith,
Timothy.
Money lets you see a specialist tomorrow, as compared to lesser insurance stretching someone to the 18 weeks.
This will always happen with capitalism. haves and have nots.
Specializes in Spinal Cord injuries, Emergency+EMS.
From a quick and dirty Google search on Chomsky, it looks like a stretch to call Chomsky "a known Marxist." In fact, he has been critical of Marxism. It does looks like some Marxist-thought groups give Chomsky's opinions a lot of weight. That is still different than Chomsky himself being a "Marxist."
I'm not noting this because I think Chomsky's opinions are beyond reproach. But I don't see the justification to dismiss his opinions on the basis that he's "a known Marxist."
Back to UHC...
perhaps we should award ZASHAGALKA the Sen. Joseph McCarhty award for contribution to the thread ...
Specializes in Spinal Cord injuries, Emergency+EMS.
Money lets you see a specialist tomorrow, as compared to lesser insurance stretching someone to the 18 weeks.
This will always happen with capitalism. haves and have nots.
except the 18 week target is to COMPLETION OF (short term)TREATMENT i.e. you will have been referred to , seen by and investigated by the specialist and have had (e.g. procedure ) or be having (e.g. long term treatment) your treatment within 18 weeks ...
assuming of course it isn't a clinical emergency when you will be admitted that day ...
The NHS does better than the American system on a wide variety of dimensions. NHS gets better health outcomes at 40% of the cost of our system.
As is my wont I am posting a picture. A picture tells the story of a thousand words. The OECD countries are holding their health care spending as a percentage of GDP to under 10% while ours is at 16% and accelerating.
If we attack Administrative costs and get them in line with our brethren in the OECD we could reduce our health care spending as a percentage of GDP to roughly 12% or at the very least get to the point of 1 dollar buys 95 cents of care versus our CURRENT 70 cents of care.
reset benchmark rates for medicare advantage plans. modify the current medicare advantage payment methodology by setting the benchmark rate for plans in each county at a level equal to the county’s projected per capita spending under traditional medicare.
stop subsidizing medicare advantage plans.
competitive bidding. establish competitive bidding among medicare plans and traditional medicare. this option would replace the current administered pricing mechanism in medicare advantage with a system that would determine prices through increased competition on the basis of quality and efficiency. the option could result in estimated health system savings of $104 billion over 10 years and substantial reductions in federal spending over the same period.
negotiated prescription drug prices. give the u.s. secretary of health and human services the authority to negotiate or set price limits for medicare prescription drug plans for their enrollees. this option could result in a net savings of $43 billion over 10 years, with a focus on dual eligibles and prescriptions within monopolized seller markets.
all-payer provider payment methods and rates. require all payers to adopt medicare payment rates and methods for hospitals and physicians. this option would provide higher payments for medicaid patients and reduce the pressure on the prices paid by private insurers to offset medicaid and other shortfalls....
the option could result in net system savings of $122 billion over 10 years, with the savings accruing to the private insurance industry.
limit payment rate updates in high-cost areas. reduce medicare spending growth by basing annual hospital and physician payment updates on cost per beneficiary in relation to a national benchmark.
...
limiting payment growth in high-cost regions could save $158 billion in health system spending over 10 years, with savings accruing to the federal government.
to paraphrase everett dirksen a billion here and a billion there pretty soon we're talking real money.
As far as universal health care; we already have a form of universal health care. Government-directed programs such as medicaid already exist, and they are not run well. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars misappropriated through the medicaid system each year - they don't have any system for keeping track of users and abusers - they can go from hospital to hospital, for example, obtain prescription medications, and then sell them on the street. (Or take them themselves) My point is, why do we think we can trust our government to create a cost effective and manageable program, when they can't balance their own budgets, or police the programs we already have? I also don't believe everyone "deserves" the right to free health care. If you are capable of working, and you are, you should receive adequate health care, no matter who you are or what you do. But if you are an able-bodied citizen, and you have been a second or third generation welfare recipient, I don't believe you "deserve" free health care. Someone has to pay for this care, and I am tired of busting my butt to cover so many others who can't get off of theirs. Don't get me wrong - I don't want to deprive people from basic care, I just think we have a whole lot of work to do before we can consider this! Look at how many elderly people, who put their time and money into the system for years, are now experiencing so much trouble receiving appropriate care. It is government mismanagement that created that mess, and I don't trust that they can do any better now. :angryfire
Before writing a rant I think it is always a good idea to do a little research and engage in critical thinking. There is plenty of data available that questions the validity of your statements.
For example:
and
I just think that it is important to take the time to think through your statements before writing. Passion should always be guided by reason.
WITT (We're in this Together) means building a framework where we as individuals can flourish.
Part of that framework is seamless automatic enrollment in health insurance along with reimbursement for provision of quality care to our patients instead of denial of care.
I favor health care as a right. Rights carry with them responsibility. I learned my lesson when I lost several important rights, like the right to freedom from unreasonable search. (but, that's another thread.)
The responsibilities associated with the right to health care for all include patient education, fraud prevention and equal access. That is a bit visionary (read naive), however a single payer system will help create an environment where rights and responsibility for health care is more possible.
mscsrjhm
646 Posts
Money lets you see a specialist tomorrow, as compared to lesser insurance stretching someone to the 18 weeks.
This will always happen with capitalism. haves and have nots.