Please explain something to me...

[Sinsear]

Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

 

[IronWing]

Doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. will continue to be private; bidding on providing services to the national health plan much as they do now with private insurance companies. The demand for medical care will not decline. Private health insurance companies will be out of business or be much smaller, providing supplemental insurance if there is a market for it. Taxes will go up to cover the cost of providing care in the national plan. However this will be offset by the disappearance of private health insurance premiums. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of health insurance company employees will be out of work and need to find new careers. At least they won't be without health insurance while they retrain, go back to school, or search for similar jobs as is the case now for the hundreds of thousands to millions of folks who find themselves out of jobs each year.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of health insurance company employees will be out of work and need to find new careers.

At least they won't be without health insurance while they retrain, go back to school, or search for similar jobs as is the case now for the hundreds of thousands to millions of folks who find themselves out of jobs each year.

Which sucks, they should at least have to go wthout insurance for a couple of years to get a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ironwing
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of health insurance company employees will be out of work and need to find new careers.

At least they won't be without health insurance while they retrain, go back to school, or search for similar jobs as is the case now for the hundreds of thousands to millions of folks who find themselves out of jobs each year.

Which sucks, they should at least have to go wthout insurance for a couple of years to get a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah... cause Judy the receptionist and Bob the accountant are teh eval. :roll:

Note to Dave: It won't be the big money guys making the decisions who make up the bulk of the layoffs.

Focus your loathing where it belongs.

 

[sandorski]

Don't worry about "destroying the Economy". That won't happen.

 

[ProfJohn]

Do you have any idea how much taxes will have to go up to pay for a national health care system?
In 2005 as a nation we spent $2 trillion on healthcare. We would most likely have to increase the amount of revenue to the government by 50% in order to provide universal coverage. (Once the American people realize that their taxes will have to go up 50% that will be the end of universal healthcare.)
And in case you are unaware the US government already spends more per person on healthcare than Canada does with its national healthcare system. Even more amazing is that our government spends a larger portion of its budget on healthcare that most of the countries that have ?universal healthcare.?

Additionally, there is already a great shortage of healthcare workers in this country, especially nurses. Any nationalized healthcare system is most likely going to make this problem worse, just look at England and its doctor shortage; Canada?s shortage is even worse than England?s.

Creating a national healthcare system would be the worse thing we can do. Look at the scandal at the VA hospital. Do we want our national healthcare system to be run in the same way? Also look at our public education system to get a sense of what a public healthcare system will be like. Inner city hospitals will be over crowded and understaffed. Meanwhile rural and wealthy areas will have nicer hospitals with less staffing issues.

The best solution is for the government to get involved in helping to provide health insurance for low income workers.
Of the 50 million Americans without health insurance how many of them want it and can?t afford it? That should be our focus.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

While you might be right about the insurance companies, I fail to see how those actually practicing medicine or developing new drugs will be hurt. A well run universal health care system works exactly like health care now, only instead of your employer or you yourself (or nobody at all) funding your health care, the government would do it. The simplest system would be where the government is basically the one and only health insurance company, where instead of making claims for coverage to your HMO or health care provider, you make claims to some department in the government. I see no reason this needs to fundamentally impact doctors or pharmaceutical companies.

Of course private insurance companies would be up a creek, at least under the system I suggested above. The workers probably wouldn't be for long, as SOMEONE needs to do their job, even if it's the government doing it, they still need actual folks to do the work. But what if "universal health care" was even further back than the government being the health insurance company...what if the government acted like your employer and just FUNDED your coverage? Federal government employees can chose from a number of different health insurance companies through their programs at their agencies, why not expand that principle to universal health care, EVERYONE gets to choose government funded coverage with the company of their choice. You still have free market health insurance companies and free market medical care, the money just comes from the government instead of employers or individuals.

A lot of opposition to universal health care seems to come from the idea that it HAS to be run like some Soviet Union program, but I don't see how that's a fundamental part of the idea. The problems with health coverage in this country aren't complex, a lot of people just don't have enough money, and employers that employ a lot of these people don't provide health coverage either. Government RUN health care wouldn't have a big advantage, but government FUNDED would solve this problem nicely.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you have any idea how much taxes will have to go up to pay for a national health care system?
In 2005 as a nation we spent $2 trillion on healthcare. We would most likely have to increase the amount of revenue to the government by 50% in order to provide universal coverage. (Once the American people realize that their taxes will have to go up 50% that will be the end of universal healthcare.)
And in case you are unaware the US government already spends more per person on healthcare than Canada does with its national healthcare system. Even more amazing is that our government spends a larger portion of its budget on healthcare that most of the countries that have ?universal healthcare.?

Additionally, there is already a great shortage of healthcare workers in this country, especially nurses. Any nationalized healthcare system is most likely going to make this problem worse, just look at England and its doctor shortage; Canada?s shortage is even worse than England?s.

Creating a national healthcare system would be the worse thing we can do. Look at the scandal at the VA hospital. Do we want our national healthcare system to be run in the same way? Also look at our public education system to get a sense of what a public healthcare system will be like. Inner city hospitals will be over crowded and understaffed. Meanwhile rural and wealthy areas will have nicer hospitals with less staffing issues.

The best solution is for the government to get involved in helping to provide health insurance for low income workers.
Of the 50 million Americans without health insurance how many of them want it and can?t afford it? That should be our focus.

So you're arguing against some Wall Street Journal characterization of universal health care while arguing in favor of what a lot of people want out of universal health care. You're making a lot of emotional appeals and using pretty tortured logic, but I see no arguments there against GOOD universal health care. We spend on health care what we spend on health care, adding the government to the mix doesn't suddenly require a lot more money. Of course taxes will go up, but a lot of other things will go DOWN...like that health insurance premium that comes out of your paycheck. And everything will be cheaper because companies aren't footing the bill for your health care either. Still, we'll be covering currently uninsured folks, so those of us who are covered will end up spending a little more than we do now...but a 50% increase in taxes? Get real.

 

[ProfJohn]

Rain, as a country we spend $2 trillion a year on healthcare.

Today our national budget is $2.9 trillion.

Now the government already pays a little less than %50 of all healthcare costs in this country, or about $1 trillion a year.
Now if we turn the whole system over to Washington we will have to come up with another $1 trillion a year in revenue to cover additional expenses.

So our national budget goes from $2.9 trillion to $3.9 trillion. A 33% increase, which would require a 33% increase in taxes to cover this additional cost.

Now we could see a reduction in overall spending in healthcare long term. But I am highly skeptical that this will happen. More likely we will see people who don?t see the doctor now for minor illnesses flooding the system every time they have a bad cold.

 

[ProfJohn]

How would a national healthcare system affect medial research?

Canada spends a LOT less on medical research than the US does, but they get the benefit of our creations.
Most private medical research is done in order to make a profit long term; this type of research would dry up once the profit motive is taken away.
This would require the government to spend more of its money on medical research to make up the loss of private funds. This means we will have more political fighting over who gets how much money and for what reasons.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rain, as a country we spend $2 trillion a year on healthcare.

Today our national budget is $2.9 trillion.

Now the government already pays a little less than %50 of all healthcare costs in this country, or about $1 trillion a year.
Now if we turn the whole system over to Washington we will have to come up with another $1 trillion a year in revenue to cover additional expenses.

So our national budget goes from $2.9 trillion to $3.9 trillion. A 33% increase, which would require a 33% increase in taxes to cover this additional cost.

Now we could see a reduction in overall spending in healthcare long term. But I am highly skeptical that this will happen. More likely we will see people who don?t see the doctor now for minor illnesses flooding the system every time they have a bad cold.

You completely ignore the costs relating to elimination of duplication of Management and the Profit now taken from Private providers.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rain, as a country we spend $2 trillion a year on healthcare.

Today our national budget is $2.9 trillion.

Now the government already pays a little less than %50 of all healthcare costs in this country, or about $1 trillion a year.
Now if we turn the whole system over to Washington we will have to come up with another $1 trillion a year in revenue to cover additional expenses.

So our national budget goes from $2.9 trillion to $3.9 trillion. A 33% increase, which would require a 33% increase in taxes to cover this additional cost.

Now we could see a reduction in overall spending in healthcare long term. But I am highly skeptical that this will happen. More likely we will see people who don?t see the doctor now for minor illnesses flooding the system every time they have a bad cold.

You completely ignore the costs relating to elimination of duplication of Management and the Profit now taken from Private providers.

And you ignore the costs of 300 million people running to the doctors every time they have a runny nose.
The truth is that we don't know if costs will go down. We believe they will because every country with universal healthcare spends less per person than we do. But none of them are any where near as large as us.

BTW if we did see a drop in healthcare spending from 15% of GDP to 10% of GDP it would still require about $300 billion a year in additionally federal spending, or about a 10% increase over what we spend now. I am guessing that it would take 5-10 years before we saw these savings, which means we would either blow a hole in the budget, or increase taxes to cover the increased government spending during this time.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rain, as a country we spend $2 trillion a year on healthcare.

Today our national budget is $2.9 trillion.

Now the government already pays a little less than %50 of all healthcare costs in this country, or about $1 trillion a year.
Now if we turn the whole system over to Washington we will have to come up with another $1 trillion a year in revenue to cover additional expenses.

So our national budget goes from $2.9 trillion to $3.9 trillion. A 33% increase, which would require a 33% increase in taxes to cover this additional cost.

Now we could see a reduction in overall spending in healthcare long term. But I am highly skeptical that this will happen. More likely we will see people who don?t see the doctor now for minor illnesses flooding the system every time they have a bad cold.

You completely ignore the costs relating to elimination of duplication of Management and the Profit now taken from Private providers.

And you ignore the costs of 300 million people running to the doctors every time they have a runny nose.
The truth is that we don't know if costs will go down. We believe they will because every country with universal healthcare spends less per person than we do. But none of them are any where near as large as us.

BTW if we did see a drop in healthcare spending from 15% of GDP to 10% of GDP it would still require about $300 billion a year in additionally federal spending, or about a 10% increase over what we spend now. I am guessing that it would take 5-10 years before we saw these savings, which means we would either blow a hole in the budget, or increase taxes to cover the increased government spending during this time.

The "size" argument is stupid. All Costs are compared on a neutral basis and there are no reasons why the US Costs are attributable to increased Population.

 

[Albatross]

people are afraid of death and want an unsustenable pyramide scheme in case sh!t hits the fan;after me the deluge.this is the main reason people want universal healtcare more than anything else.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: albatross
people are afraid of death and want an unsustenable pyramide scheme in case sh!t hits the fan;after me the deluge.this is the main reason people want universal healtcare more than anything else.

Pyramid scheme?

 

[Dissipate]

National health care would give me another big reason to exit the country permanently.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
National health care would give me another big reason to exit the country permanently.

Then where would you go? Every single industrialised country out there has national health care.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Dark4ng3l

Originally posted by: Dissipate
National health care would give me another big reason to exit the country permanently.

Then where would you go? Every single industrialised country out there has national health care.

Switzerland would be at the top of my list.

Text

 

[IronWing]

I would be thrilled if my federal taxes only went up 50% to cover national health insurance. The premiums I and my employer pay to cover private insurance far exceed what I pay in federal taxes so I would come out way ahead as wouls the vast majority of taxpayers.

Federal taxes pay for most medical research now so not much will change there.

 

[Dissipate]

I noticed no one has mentioned the fact that illegal immigration would become a total nightmare if there was universal health care. If you think that it is bad now with hospitals closing down, you haven't seen anything yet.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: ironwing
I would be thrilled if my federal taxes only went up 50% to cover national health insurance. The premiums I and my employer pay to cover private insurance far exceed what I pay in federal taxes so I would come out way ahead as wouls the vast majority of taxpayers.

Federal taxes pay for most medical research now so not much will change there.

We will see how far 'ahead' you will come out when you are forced to provide full health coverage for hundreds, or even thousands of illegal immigrants.

People point to Canada as an example of a universal health care system that works, but what they don't realize is that Canada is on the border with a 1st world country, the U.S. is on the border with a 3rd world country.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Being one who works in health care I think this is one time where PJ is right. The cost of health care will skyrocket unless there are severe limitations on access. Collectively Americans want everything and they want it right now. There is already a "universal" health care system in the US called Medicaid. Many states are struggling with the burden placed upon them for the relatively few people who use government provided health care. The costs will be fantastic if everyone gets the same level of care provided through the medicaid system.

Another thing is the costs of regulation in money and time. A concrete example is HIPPA. One of the things HIPPA did is provide requirements for patient privacy. On the surface that sounds reasonable, but what it did is cost health care providers billions upon billions to meed the govt. mandated rules. Just ask nurses how much time they spend complying with onerous regulations that was once given to patients. I'm a pharmacist and this impacts us as well, and again not just financially (which has by no means been inexpensive). We see elderly patients as a matter of course. Mrs Jones says that her 70 year old husband has been having some problems and wants to know if his medication may play a part in it. A few years ago I would have use my professional judgment and discussed what I feel was appropriate with her. What I would NOT have done is to tell her that I cant use my knowledge and experience to help her with her concerns. Sorry HIPPA regulations prevent me from discussing it with her unless she has power of attorney.

HIPPA is incredibly ill thought out and intrusive and it took years and billions of dollars to put into effect. It is in effect politicians practicing medicine. That pales in significance to the task of setting up an entire health care system. By the time the medicaid, trial lawyers , and every special interest group get at Congress health care is going to be chopped meat. By the time the Republicans and Democrats fight it out for their own selfish interests , that chopped meat is going to be hamburger. And in all this health care providers are going to be asked to do more with less while dealing with impossible to comply with mandates from the state.

While I have many problems with the current system (which gets worse by the day), there needs to be consideration of another way. Some limited system providing for catastrophic health care, combined with increased tax exemptions for prescription and other medical costs incurred. Anything but wholesale management of health care by govt.


If nothing above means anything to you, consider the same kinds of people who bring you bridges to nowhere and the Iraq War will be mandating how and what you will have for health care. GWB and Ted Kennedy are your MDs now.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Being one who works in health care I think this is one time where PJ is right.

Can I put the bolded part in my sig?

Hayabusa Rider
Elite Member
Gadgets Moderator
P&N Moderator

Thinks that I am right
BTW you need more titles, you are starting to catch up with Prince Charles.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Being one who works in health care I think this is one time where PJ is right.

Can I put the bolded part in my sig?

Hayabusa Rider
Elite Member
Gadgets Moderator
P&N Moderator

Thinks that I am right
BTW you need more titles, you are starting to catch up with Prince Charles.

What it all means is that I'm the door man with a broom

 

[mattpegher]

The problem is that universal healthcare in its most basic premise would suggest that everyone would be able to get care no matter how poor or uninsured. In reality we have that now, its called the Emergency Department. Everyone is seen without regard for insurance or ability to pay. This system is breaking down because the poor have no incentive not to seek care for minor illnesses or to address medical concerns before they reach an urgent state. Everytime you have to go to the ED, you are paying for at least 2 other patients who have no means or intention to pay.