IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Advocate wrote:

Fishin, Miller, so what are your personal views on this issue?

I am not opposed to Universal Health care per se. I am opposed to people making up and/or cherry picking numbers to try to push through something that isn't as dire as mentioned. There are a few advantages to a Universal system but they usually get short shrift in any discussion. Instead, people rely on fabricated numbers to make wild claims that don't hold up under scrutiny.

Quote:

I think the evidence is overwhelming that our current system is a loser. Just to name one monumental thing, about 50 M are uninsured, and another 50 M are underinsured (poor plans with high deductibles, exclusions, etc.).

And what exactly do those numbers mean? Oooooo! There's a lot of uninsured people out there! Yep. Now why isn't anyone asking why? 45% of legal, non-citzen immigrants have no insurance. 60% of illegal immigrants have no insurance. There are millions of uninsured children (U.S. citizens) that are eligible for government provided health insurnce yet NOT ONE state in the country has more than 80% of those eligible covered and MANY states have lees than 50% of the eligible enrolled. (Those are all based on 2000 numbers from the Census Dept.) The enrollment rate for eligibles in the S-CHIP program in MA is ~40%. The program is there and already paid for. Why aren't the other 60% of eligibles enrolled and using it?

MA implemented mandatory health insurance and of the 360,000 uninsured in the state, less than 65,000 have signed up. Even at that rate of compliance they don't have the money to pay for it. The rates are higher than the program's backers claimed they would be and the state is already running a higher tab for it than was predicted and budgeted for.

If anything, the evidence indicates that people are either to stupid or to lazy to do anything for themselves and want health care handed to them on a silver platter.

Quote:

I just heard that more and more businesses are pushing for universal.

Of course there are more and more. Why shouldn't there be? They think they can cut their costs by passing the buck to someone else. The AMA is all for universal healthcare too but the minute anyone mentions capping the rates doctors can bill for services under any plan they squeal like stuck pigs. Create a plan where they get reimbursed at the current Medicare rates and they'll all quickly run from the system.

Quote:

I don't see any other "rich" countries rushing to dump their universal systems.

I don't see any that aren't constantly changing their systems either so apparently they aren't exactly thrilled with them.

When it comes down to brass tacks the facts are that we have a saftey net for most citizens and for multiple reasons people aren't using it. Along with that the claimed advantages all rely on false advertising and bogus comparisons. Along with that, pretty much every single survey showing that the public wants Universal Care also shows that no one thinks they should have to pay for it. There is no free lunch.

0 Replies

The Commonwealth Fund is a prestigious organization with a blue-chip board. I trust their findings more than I trust yours.

Of course every system of any magnitude needs occasional tweaking. I think you are taking a cheap shot at universal health care when you point to a country's tweaking its system.

Numbers need analysis. To quote numbers from a single year may be a distortion. A proper study looks at long-term trends.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The Commonwealth Fund is a prestigious organization with a blue-chip board. I trust their findings more than I trust yours.

Good for you.

Quote:

Of course every system of any magnitude needs occasional tweaking. I think you are taking a cheap shot at universal health care when you point to a country's tweaking its system.

And you aren't taking cheap shots at the current system by cherry picking numbers? You seem to be forgetting that the current system works just fine for the overwhelming number of Americans.

Quote:

Numbers need analysis. To quote numbers from a single year may be a distortion. A proper study looks at long-term trends.

Which was exactly my point in reference to the Commonwealth Fund's numbers yet you claim to trust them. Glad to see that you agree that their study wasn't "proper".

0 Replies

Quote:

You seem to be forgetting that the current system works just fine for the overwhelming number of Americans.

Naturally, this depends on your definition of 'just fine.' I think most Americans would disagree with you on this one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If Universal Health Care is covered by Medicare in the near future, the entire system will be bankrupt in a few years. Then, what will become of all the elderly and infirmed, who really depend on Medicare for services and finance?

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

If Universal Health Care is covered by Medicare in the near future, the entire system will be bankrupt in a few years. Then, what will become of all the elderly and infirmed, who really depend on Medicare for services and finance?

Obviously that couldn't happen w/o more money coming in. I remember seeing something that I liked where businesses were going to be giving the amount they spent on healthcare for their employees to the government initially. So if my employer spends $400/month for my healthcare coverage, then instead they'd send that to the government and my heathcare would be through them (probably much cheaper too). I think that was only an intial solution and eventually the money needed would drop from price negotiations and prescription drug deals.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Miller wrote:
If Universal Health Care is covered by Medicare in the near future, the entire system will be bankrupt in a few years. Then, what will become of all the elderly and infirmed, who really depend on Medicare for services and finance?

Obviously that couldn't happen w/o more money coming in. I remember seeing something that I liked where businesses were going to be giving the amount they spent on healthcare for their employees to the government initially. So if my employer spends $400/month for my healthcare coverage, then instead they'd send that to the government and my heathcare would be through them (probably much cheaper too). I think that was only an intial solution and eventually the money needed would drop from price negotiations and prescription drugdeals.

Please don't forget that many MDs don't take Medicare patients
and also remember, that even with increasing of Medicare and Medicaid patients appearing each and every day in American health care facilities, the numbers of American-educated MDs is fairly constant and not about to increase in the near future.

If Medicare covers all patients, who will be responsible for their care and what will the time frame for such treatment be?

Do you really think that a dramatic increase in patient population will result in a dramatic increase in supply of American-educated physicians, who're willing to treat medicare/medicaid patients?

Please don't forget, that some physicians refuse to even take insurance-paying patients and instead, insist on payment in cold cash.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

If Universal Health Care is covered by Medicare in the near future, the entire system will be bankrupt in a few years. Then, what will become of all the elderly and infirmed, who really depend on Medicare for services and finance?

Medicare could be tweaked as necessary to make it less costly.

On a cost/benefit basis, it is about five times more efficient than the current health care system. Moreover, it would serve fine as a model universal health care system.

0 Replies

And who will be taking care of these patients?
That's the most important issue.

If Medicare covers everyone, the only individuals who'll be receiving excellent care will be those, who don't draw on Medicare and maintain a private insurance or cash plan.

The net result will be extreme polarity in the health care system.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Miller wrote:
If Universal Health Care is covered by Medicare in the near future, the entire system will be bankrupt in a few years. Then, what will become of all the elderly and infirmed, who really depend on Medicare for services and finance?

Obviously that couldn't happen w/o more money coming in. I remember seeing something that I liked where businesses were going to be giving the amount they spent on healthcare for their employees to the government initially. So if my employer spends $400/month for my healthcare coverage, then instead they'd send that to the government and my heathcare would be through them (probably much cheaper too). I think that was only an intial solution and eventually the money needed would drop from price negotiations and prescription drug deals.

Remember that even with Medicare coverage a Medigap plan will be necessary and right now, Medigap plans are covered by private insurance plans.

Consider too, the burden that Medicare and Medicaid places on both hospitals and MDs, because of the relatively low payment policies of the US Government. How many more ERs will be overloaded with patients and moreover, how many hospitals will be forced to close.

0 Replies

Because Medicare and Medicaid payments to MDs are low, many physicians are forced to see patients 10'-15'/visit and to book patients 4-5 per hour, 8-10 hr/day ( at least ).

What about medical specialists? What will be the consequences?

Anyone, who's been a recent patient in an ER knows what hell can exist there. What will ERs be like, after Universal Health care?

0 Replies

Because health insurance is so expensive these days, one can't help but wonder why the Government doesn't regulate the insurance business. They sure as hell were determined to bankrupt the tobacco companies!

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Because Medicare and Medicaid payments to MDs are low, many physicians are forced to see patients 10'-15'/visit and to book patients 4-5 per hour, 8-10 hr/day ( at least ).

What about medical specialists? What will be the consequences?

Anyone, who's been a recent patient in an ER knows what hell can exist there. What will ERs be like, after Universal Health care?

I fail to see how UH can work in other countries, POORER countries, but there is this insistence that it cannot work in OURS.

Do you think that healthcare is only for those who can afford it? Is that your honest belief?

Do you think our companies can continue to cover the cost of healthcare for their employees and still be competitive in the global economy?

Would a centralized healthcare system in the US NOT be more efficient than the hundreds of thousands of EXTRA people involved in employee/company managed health care.

How many hospital employees are hired to deal with the multitude of insurance companies and each of their minute policy differences that could be cleaned up?

If not for adults, then at least for children. Give me that much!

0 Replies

As I've repeatedly said, with the advent of socialized medicine in the US, there will result an extreme polarity in the distribution and quality of medical care in the US.

This has already begun, but only the wealthy are aware of it.

0 Replies

Miller, were Medicare a universal plan, Medigap wouldn't be necessary. The former would cover drugs, as well as care.

It would not be socialized. It would be single payer, and the payer need not be the government. It could be a nonprofit. The doctors, hospitals, drug companies would probably remain private, not governmental.

A large percentage of doctors in this country are overpaid, and should suffer a wealthdectomy. Doctors in other countries are paid far less in general, and there is no shortage of them.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Miller, were Medicare a universal plan, Medigap wouldn't be necessary. The former would cover drugs, as well as care.

It would not be socialized. It would be single payer, and the payer need not be the government. It could be a nonprofit. The doctors, hospitals, drug companies would probably remain private, not governmental.

A large percentage of doctors in this country are overpaid, and should suffer a wealthdectomy. Doctors in other countries are paid far less in general, and there is no shortage of them.

Who are you to decide if they are overpaid or not?
Do you have aproblem with people being paid for their knowledge,training and experience?

Would you also claim that Tiger Woods,or Ken Griffey Jr,or any other pro athlete that makes money is overpaid?

What about your local plumber?
They charge a pretty high rate sometimes. Are they overpaid?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Miller, were Medicare a universal plan, Medigap wouldn't be necessary. The former would cover drugs, as well as care.

It would not be socialized. It would be single payer, and the payer need not be the government. It could be a nonprofit. The doctors, hospitals, drug companies would probably remain private, not governmental.

A large percentage of doctors in this country are overpaid, and should suffer a wealthdectomy. Doctors in other countries are paid far less in general, and there is no shortage of them.

And on top of that, if the rich can afford to go to a better doctor then so be it. Let them pay for better healthcare. My point is not worsen our nation's healthcare (which is good, but not as good as some other UH nations) but to allow everyone access to some basic healthcare (w/o getting a 10,000 bill in the mail from the ER for an overnight stay.

0 Replies

Remember that a third of our population have no or inadequate health insurance. Many of these people are dying as a result. This is incongruous when you consider that that we will be spending $750 B on our military per year, but can't afford to help our fellow citizens with getting decent care.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Remember that a third of our population have no or inadequate health insurance. Many of these people are dying as a result. This is incongruous when you consider that that we will be spending $750 B on our military per year, but can't afford to help our fellow citizens with getting decent care.

Source for your claim?????

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Miller, were Medicare a universal plan, Medigap wouldn't be necessary.

Medicare is a "universal plan" for those 65 years of age or older, who've paid into the system as required by law. There is Medicare A, which is free and then there is Medicare B which is not.

Everyone in the program receives Medicare A, and those who want to pay an extra premium can receive Medicare B.

Medicare D pays for medications ( if on the formulary).

As Medicare A and B don't always cover everything, Medigap insurance must be purchased from Company that offers health insurance.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know