I need to be convinced on this, and it's a topic I have not researched very much on my own. 1. what's the need? (i'm not asking this sarcastically as if there is not a need...i'm just trying to frame the discussion) 2. how would it work? 3. concerns are about the quality of health care if we went this direction...how would you answer that? 4. any idea of the cost? 5. whatever else you can think to say!
I won't argue for 'Nationalized' Healthcare, but I will for 'Single Payor', meaning all are covered by the government. 1. Almost 50% of healthcare is already single payor - covered by the gov under Medicare and Medicaid; 2. That fact that employers presently cover healthcare is only an evolutionary mistake. They shouldn't have anything to do with it. E.g., an employer group was once asked 'do you want to pay for mammograms when it is not cost effective for your employees?' and they admitted...'NO'; 3. Other than Medicare and Medicaid, much of the 'unreimbursed care' is paid by the rest of us anyway. The costs are hidden in the fees we pay. This is most inefficient and undesirable. These services cannot be 'managed'. For instance, you could have uncovered asthmatic children who end up in the ER repeatedly instead of much cheaper pharmaceuticals. 4. Why should those on Medicaid have better benefits than many of the rest of us? (this was the case in California, cannot speak for other States) 5. No quality concern here, because you use the existing private carriers and networks. It was being used well by Medicare for Seniors (until Clinton ) and is also used by Medicaid programs. Impact: 1) Individual Quality (for those with benefits now) - unaffected for some, improved for others. No concerns about lapses in coverage or what services are covered; 2) Aggregate Quality - much improved as everyone is covered and 'managed' in the appropriate setting, 3) Cost: we're already paying for much of the coverage in hidden fees. Managing the 'uncovered' will reap some saving on the hidden fees. Concern under Single Payor: Increased political gaming of the system.
In Canada everyone has a card that allows them to go to private doctors, like medicare in this country. Many doctors like this as it makes it much easier to work for oneself and not a big hmo or group. Without the approximately one to two full time billing clerks a GP in private practice needs to do paperwork in this country, the overhead is much less. All the neighbors can walk in with their card and you're in business. Doctors in Canada only make an average of about $100 grand per year so it doesn't appeal as much to those who want to make really big bucks. See the link for 1985 figues showing about $80,000 plus for GP's in Canda and about $115 K for specialists. The best I cuuld do in a quic search. link
I think National healthcare is a great thing. Everyone, regardless of stature should be allowed the same amount of healthcare. Education and healthcare are rights in my mind, not privelidges. DD
National healthcare would be the greatest boondoogle ever conceived. I know that your "same amount of healthcare" platitude sounds all warm and fuzzy, but realize this. There is no right to healthcare contained in the Constitution. Healthcare is a service just like oil changes and tire rotations for your car and should be treated accordingly. It is the liberals in this country who have successfully convinced people they have a "right" to something that in the past, they paid for themselves. I mean, cripes, the damned post office can't even get a b-day card from my home in Dahlonega to Athens, GA where my cousin goes to school in less than two weeks! SO you would entrust the Federal govt. with 1/7th of the national economy and ruin the world's finest medical system. I don't think so.
Whatever Cohen says on this issue, I'd likely agree. If there is one thing I have learned, it is that he knows the issue better than most of us ever will. As for my own personal standpoint, I don't have the knowledge to really make an educated opinion, but I know that having 50 million Americans with no healthcare is a problem for everyone financially, medically and socially. I don't know how to fix it, but there must be a better way than having a parent sit in the emergency room when her child gets a cold or get far-below-par medical treatment when they cannot afford it.
bamaslammer -- i'm not saying there's a Constitutional right to healthcare. but that doesn't meant that Congress can't address the problem of some 50 million Americans without health care coverage. that problem is, to me, unacceptable in a society as wealthy and productive as ours.
I just think people should pay for their own health care. I don't ask you to pay for mine or my children's. What next, do people have a right to cars and homes and such bought with other people's money? I'm sure it is not far off.
In general, I am against nationalized health care because of the fiscal burden it places on the taxpayer. I think it is execrable what passes for insurance in this country. HMOs care about one thing, the almighty dollar, and patients suffer through denials of claims, reductions of service, and non- or under-coverage for what should be routine procedures. I believe in stronger regulation of insurance companies, but that is a non starter because of the insurance lobby. I think there is room for compromise, as we have found with the CHIP programs in the states and perhaps even further room to insure the un- or underinsured by using a government controlled HMO. This HMO could provide benefits to folks by requiring them to work a certain amount of hours in order to receive coverage. This way, there is not a something for nothing arrangement, which conservatives are so concerned about, and people still get health care.
So you think we should trash Medicare and Medicaid both? We would also need to trash insurance; so you want to go fee for service? Hmmm....you'll really like that when you visit the hospital. As I said before...you already pay for everyone else's healthcare. The way we do it now is just incredibly complicated, inefficient and inhumane.
Andy, The difference is that we are already paying for healthcare for the uninsured. I may have a simple minded approach, but it seems to work in other countries. IE Germany, Canada, Great Britain etc. DD
if your kids go to public school then I am paying for their education. Is that more important than their health?
Originally posted by andymoon In general, I am against nationalized health care because of the fiscal burden it places on the taxpayer. Who do you think pays for it now? I think it is execrable what passes for insurance in this country. HMOs care about one thing, the almighty dollar, and patients suffer through denials of claims, reductions of service, and non- or under-coverage for what should be routine procedures. I believe in stronger regulation of insurance companies, but that is a non starter because of the insurance lobby. That simple, eh? What regulations would you request? Make MCOs (a more encompassing term for HMOs, PPOs, etc) pay for services that employer groups did not contract for? Or would you be comfortable allowing legislatures to mandate required services, thus causing premiums to rise and along with the uninsured as more companies get priced out of health care benefits? MCOs care about success. Contrary to what many doctors would have you believe, businesses don't flourish be screwing over their customers. The PR campaign by the medical community has worked well on many ( ). One study showed people very upset with HMOs in general, yet they gave their own MCOs high marks (in fact, few understood that they belonged to an HMO). For years the medical community has complained about HMO quality of care, yet these early claims were generally contradicted by subsequent (published) research. Neither 'side' is good all of the time. Neither doctors nor carriers will act as patient advocate consistently...they have conflicting priorities that can cause harm to patients (IMHO, the closest thing I've seen to patients advocates are nurses). You would be wise to not accept their PR as gospel. I think there is room for compromise, as we have found with the CHIP programs in the states and perhaps even further room to insure the un- or underinsured by using a government controlled HMO. This HMO could provide benefits to folks by requiring them to work a certain amount of hours in order to receive coverage. This way, there is not a something for nothing arrangement, which conservatives are so concerned about, and people still get health care. So...the uninsured would be...providing healthcare services to other uninsured?
'Nationalized Care' doesn't always work well in those countries. Few here would want to wait a year or more for an elective surgery or travel an hour to the nearest specialist or MRI. 'Single Payor' covers everyone, but does not lose the free market-based incentive system critical to insuring a high-value service.
Wow, dude -- you summed it up in fantastic brevity! I have no problem using my tax dollars to help neighbors stay healthy. I'm healthy because I was born into the middle class. Why should people suffer because they were born to poor parents? Hell, if nothing else, we should have better health care coverage just because Canada does. We can't let Canada beat us!
My kids go to parochial school. And thanks, but no thanks, I can take care of their healthcare just fine thank you. And the rest of the country should adopt that attitude as well.
Since I am by nature, consistent, yes. I think insurance should like for catastrophic illness, not covering going to the doctor for a cold or other crap like that. That's why you save up money or get insurance. I'm tired of people wanting me to take responsibility for their health care by using my dollars confiscated by the govt. You wouldn't knock down my door to rob me of my money to buy your kids' health care, now would you? Well, it is no different if you use govt. as your means of plunder to make me pay for your health care. Mediscare and Medicaid are horrible programs, rife with corruption and cheating. Those who manage those programs have no accountability for where that money goes. My best friend from h/s worked for a mental health company as a case worker and he told me how easy it would be for the parents of his "clients," mostly the mentally r****ded or him to get the govt. to pay for non-existent treatments and care. Billions are spent a year on these two, wasteful programs with no clue where it goes. And guys, you forget one thing.....free govt. healthcare would lead to several things: 1. waiting for vital treatments or surgery 2. more people would use it (since it is free) and it would be a boon to hypochondriacs everywhere. 3. It would destroy our economy and make our health care system a disaster. Democrats try to act like we have the worst health care system on Earth, but where do foreign leaders and other folks in power come to get treated? Not Europe but here. The free market makes our system the best. But of course, you have to pay for it. And what's wrong with that?
did he really just say this? wow, i guess i've seen these nut-cases on TV before, but never thought that I would ever actually be speaking to one.. and I thought T_J was nuts...
I understand your viewpoint. Independence is great. Unfortunately, that's not exactly how the world works, or at least works 'best'. You didn't quite pcik up on the fact that using your logic, there would be no insurance. Everyone would just tell you to ge pay your catastrophic bill yourself. Why should they pay it? Oh, because you paid into a fund? Hmmm...sounds like that 'fund' could be analogous to taxes. Oh, what a slippery slope!
