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 Spinal Cord injuries, Emergency+EMS.
The gov't, BY DEFINTION, is amoral.
IT MAKES NO SENSE to say that, in order to avoid an amoral method of rationing, we must turn the whole process over to a purposely amoral gov't entity.
You can't have it both ways: 'Separation of Church and State' AND the gov't doing your 'moral' bidding.
With the free market, both parties have a choice. Morality is preserved by either party, at their discretion and only with the approval of the other party to the trade.
~faith,
Timothy.
says a man from a contury which despite being alledgedly disestablished puts 'in god we trust' on bank notes ....
the UK has the excuse of having an official statereligion withthe sovereign as head for putting 'dieu et mon droit' on some of the currency...
I happened upon this thread with the desire to do more research on socialized medicine after watching Michal Moore's "Sicko" yesterday.
All I can say is WOW-WOW-WOW!!! I am honestly and *VERY* seriously contemplating moving overseas so that my family may reap the benefits of basic healthcare. My husband and I are un-insured (I work in a private practice environment and simply cannot afford the premiums) but we made sure that our daughter has insurance.
I happened upon this thread with the desire to do more research on socialized medicine after watching Michal Moore's "Sicko" yesterday.
All I can say is WOW-WOW-WOW!!! I am honestly and *VERY* seriously contemplating moving overseas so that my family may reap the benefits of basic healthcare. My husband and I are un-insured (I work in a private practice environment and simply cannot afford the premiums) but we made sure that our daughter has insurance.
Why not wait, there WILL be an improvement in our own health care access here in our own country.
...For that matter I wouldn't even oppose bonuses for meeting certain population health targets for members of the group. (Eg mean hgba1c at
Doc's and nurses should get the bonuses instead of insurance companies getting the bonuses, after all, it is we who are on the front lines. In working with high risk pts, teaching, treatments, etc. get the LDL, A1C's, BMI and the like WNL, this obviously benefits the pt and the ins cos saves on payouts of benefits. But this is not how it works, as you all know...
A few years ago, I went for my yearly PAP (preventative, non-diagnostic). When I got the EOB from CIGNA, I noticed that the claim was denied. I called and was told by the represtentative (no doubt, non-clinical) that preventative testing was not covered under my plan. I asked her if they would pay for the treatment of cervical CA, and she said, "yes ma'am, 100%".
A few years ago, I went for my yearly PAP (preventative, non-diagnostic). When I got the EOB from CIGNA, I noticed that the claim was denied. I called and was told by the represtentative (no doubt, non-clinical) that preventative testing was not covered under my plan. I asked her if they would pay for the treatment of cervical CA, and she said, "yes ma'am, 100%".
:angryfire
Your post highlights a common problem: individuals who don't know the coverage and limitations of their plan(s).
I'm not trying to defend your insurer for failing to cover preventive care. I agree that it's usually more efficient, desirable and cost-effective to do so. But I don't understand employees who register for coverage without knowing what they are getting, especially when they have more than one plan from which to choose, and/or pay a portion of premiums out of pocket.
I have worked for 2 employers who changed insurance plans in response to staff members' requests. One added dental and vision. One offered a second option which provided more preventive care as opposed to the "traditional" insurance they had always provided which (like your plan) was focused on illness care, rather than wellness.
Changes can be made, but it won't happen if employees don't know what their coverage is, and how it can be improved.
Doc's and nurses should get the bonuses instead of insurance companies getting the bonuses, after all, it is we who are on the front lines. In working with high risk pts, teaching, treatments, etc. get the LDL, A1C's, BMI and the like WNL, this obviously benefits the pt and the ins cos saves on payouts of benefits. But this is not how it works, as you all know...
A few years ago, I went for my yearly PAP (preventative, non-diagnostic). When I got the EOB from CIGNA, I noticed that the claim was denied. I called and was told by the represtentative (no doubt, non-clinical) that preventative testing was not covered under my plan. I asked her if they would pay for the treatment of cervical CA, and she said, "yes ma'am, 100%".
:angryfire
And this illustrates exactly how we reinforce insurance companies for denial of care rather than quality of care. It also illustrates how a uniformly consistent level of benefits and coverages for all patients can improve levels of care for all. Denial of coverage for a pap smear is the classic example of "Penny wise Pound foolish."
My point about health targets was made in the sense that to get reform through it may well need to include ways for the "efficient" private sector to earn more money since real reform will cut their administration/profits from the obscene 30% ratio to 5%. The contingencies need to be reordered to delivering high quality care instead of denial of care.
I agree that nurses and doctors deserve the credit for the success not the benefit denial specialists.
"Those may be the points of emphasis, but McCain wants expanded access, too, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton claim they can rein in health-care costs. One thing we've learned from state-based experiments in universal coverage: It's not cheap. In Massachusetts, taxpayer subsidies for its two-year-old program of mandated coverage will rise from $158 million in 2007 to $600 million this year and $870 million in 2009. Lawmakers are now scrambling to impose new cost controls. On the menu: lower payments to doctors, hospitals and drug companies.
Meantime, a similar plan proposed in California died in January when the independent Legislative Analyst projected the program would cost at least $4 billion more in its first five years than proponents first suggested."
Very chilling. First, the program after 2 yrs, costs more than three times its original outlay moving towards four times original cost by year three of the program.
More chilling: the solution - cost controls (rationed care) to include lower payments to providers. THAT'S YOU.
Hillary's plan is very similar to Massachusetts plan: mandatory insurance.
until we control administrative costs there can be no real cost control. 26% of our costs in the "efficient" private market are going to administrative costs not patient care.
administrative costs are easily eating up almost 300 bn dollars each year of our health care budget. taming that monster can free up the money to get everyone into the health care system.
until we control administrative costs there can be no real cost control. 26% of our costs in the "efficient" private market are going to administrative costs not patient care.
administrative costs are easily eating up almost 300 bn dollars each year of our health care budget. taming that monster can free up the money to get everyone into the health care system.
there is absolutely nothing stopping the federal government from increasing the efficiency of their healthcare plans. let them build a system that is so efficient and cost-effective that private citizens want to pay premiums to become part of it!
in the meantime, leave private citizens to spend their money as they choose. there is absolutely no reason to force private citizens into government plans that they want no part of. you may believe that private citizens are wasting their money on inefficient healthcare. no matter. it is their right to do so. just as they "waste" their money on all sorts of things, including vacations, cars, expensive clothes, electronics, cell phones, jewelry, etc. or do you propose taking control of all private spending you deem to be "excessive"?
ZippyGBR, BSN, RN
1,038 Posts
says a man from a contury which despite being alledgedly disestablished puts 'in god we trust' on bank notes ....
the UK has the excuse of having an official statereligion withthe sovereign as head for putting 'dieu et mon droit' on some of the currency...