Govt health insurance

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

So I slept in today (played a show late into the early morning last night), and i was waken up by 2 people fighting over govt controlled health care

 

 

It would seem to me, when someone is bleeding or dying, they should be allowed to medical care without having to worry about how they are going to pay, that should be the responsibillity of the sick or injured to pay after their problems are healed

 

 

but on the other side of the coin, if we overthrew the monopoly of medical insurance companies, and all paid a small amount (keyword ALL, as in no-one gets medical care without PAYING their share into the pot) into a central kitty, that that would be an equally sucsessful method of maintaining a healthy society

 

America was founded on rugged individualism and a free market, allowing for people to get rich and to make their own sucsess, but at what point do we want do we draw the line where we are no longer promoting self reliance, but just being selfish?

 

 

thoughts? opinions?

KEEP IT CIVIL AND POLITE

[NeoConMan]

Years ago, doctors were paid by everybody in town to keep all healthy.

When you needed care you simply went.

 

Now, care at that time was primitive - administered by barbers.

The red and white barbers pole represents a bloody bandage....

 

No anesthesia, bloodletting was a common treatment, experimentation and wild *** guesses were the norm.

Few ever attended a medical school of any substance, some never at all.

 

 

 

Conversely, we didn't have crowded emergency rooms with children complaining of sore throats and people seeking treatment for dubious ills because they know it's a quick way to get drugs - or simply attention.

 

 

Our system needs help, there are many wrongs, but putting your health care decisions in the hands of gov't bean counters is like going to a soup line for a gourmet dinner with your most respected business associates.

 

The Obama method (modeled after Europe) is NOT the answer.

[tuckomf]

 

Our system needs help' date=' there are many wrongs, but putting your health care decisions in the hands of gov't bean counters is like going to a soup line for a gourmet dinner with your most respected business associates.

 

The Obama method (modeled after Europe) is NOT the answer.

[/quote']

 

I agree completely.

 

There are obvious flaws in the system, most of them stemming from the fact that many hospitals are overcrowded and understaffed. My mom is a nurse, and I don't dare ask how work is going anymore, because I know I'll hear about whatever pharmaceutical rep is visiting to push his wares that week, and in return, the company will fund some random project for the hospital.

She's also called me to ask about signs to look for in drug-seeking individuals - I know many good people with bad habits. Most of the individuals are looking for a little better living through chemistry deal, and are on some kind of insurance that will pay for an E.R. visit and a couple weeks worth of painkillers.

Because so many people abuse their insurance, they help out those who don't have it. For example, the hospital sets up payment plans that end up being about the cost of a monthly insurance payment, and deduct whatever they can from the treatment cost. In the end, uninsured people get the "Les Paul Studio" treatment- no fancy bells and whistles, but they get treated and go on their way. On the flip side, hospitals will give insured patients the "Les Paul R9" treatment, using every possible machine and consulting with every possible specialist to ensure that the patient's affliction is treated as effectively as possible, sparing no expense.

In the long run, hospitals can maintain their facilities and pay their staff from the money brought in from insurance companies. I think that if the gov't took over, we'd see "The Hospital...Of TOMORROW!" in Washington D.C., and "Ye Olde Barbershop With Ye Leeches" everywhere else. Really, there is corruption in the medical system, but I'd rather have hospitals taking pharmaceutical payola and hosing insurance companies to pay their medical staff handsomely. At least that way I'll have someone who busted his or her *** in school to become a well-paid professional, as opposed to whoever puts in the lowest bid to the feds.

[Hoyt]

. . . . . . .Our system needs help' date=' there are many wrongs, but putting your health care decisions in the hands of gov't bean counters is like going to a soup line for a gourmet dinner with your most respected business associates. . . . . . .

[/quote']

 

 

Oh sure, let CEOs and managers out to boost their bonuses make the decisions to deny care (based upon some BS about pre-existing conditions); scrimp on care; and pay physicians, hospitals, etc., peanuts.

 

Let hard working people who lose their jobs when they get cancer or a heart condition go broke so they can get on the Medicaid rolls.

 

Our current system sucks big time and too many folks not directly involved in providing care are getting rich. We'd be better off with elected/appointed government officials (perhaps at the local level) making some of the major decisions than having some greedy CEO making them based upon what's good for him and stockholders. The insurance industry just came out and said they'd cut costs $2 Billion. Why haven't they done so before they were faced with new legislation? Because they are too freakin greedy and only do that stuff when forced to.

 

It is time for major health coverage reform. I personally support a single payer system (with physicians remaining in private practice), but there are other ways to approach it if we have to ensure the insurance industry keeps their hold on the health care system.

 

I think the original poster posed a good question about when are we at the point of "just being selfish."

[NeoConMan]

Oh sure' date=' let CEOs and managers out to boost their bonuses make the decisions to deny care (based upon some BS about pre-existing conditions); scrimp on care; and pay physicians, hospitals, etc., peanuts.[/quote']

A business is no longer a business when you remove the potential for profit.

Socialism is a great alternative, eh?

 

 

 

 

Let hard working people who lose their jobs when they get cancer or a heart condition go broke so they can get on the Medicaid rolls.

Hoyt' date=' do you read a FxCKING THING anybody else posts? REALLY?

Or does your Liberal brain automatically do a "Cliff Notes" scan for the key Liberal catch phrases hidded within?

I think the consensus here is that the system is flawed - argue with yourself.....

 

 

 

 

Our current system sucks big time and too many folks not directly involved in providing care are getting rich.

OH MY GOD!!!!

SOMEBODY is making money!!!!

We HAVE to STOP THIS!!!!!!

 

Hoyt, what do you do for a living?

 

 

 

 

We'd be better off with elected/appointed government officials (perhaps at the local level) making some of the major decisions than having some greedy CEO making them based upon what's good for him and stockholders.

Politicize it' date=' THAT will fix it!!!!

Our government is so efficient with everything else they are involved in....

 

 

 

 

The insurance industry just came out and said they'd cut costs $2 Billion. Why haven't they done so before they were faced with new legislation? Because they are too freakin greedy and only do that stuff when forced to.

Hoyt, I DEMAND that you send $100 to me immediately.

As a matter of fact, I want all the cash in your wallet.

Keep your credit cards and such, I don't want to defraud you, and keep working to earn money for yourself, but I want you to give me some of YOUR money right now.

I insist.

 

In fact, I truly believe it's the right thing for you to do.

 

 

 

 

It is time for major health coverage reform.

Well' date=' no sh!t.....

I happen to disagree with the Liberal notion that reforming is only possible by destroying, then coping with the remains.

Maybe we should actually improve things, eh?

 

 

 

 

I personally support a single payer system (with physicians remaining in private practice), but there are other ways to approach it if we have to ensure the insurance industry keeps their hold on the health care system.

 

I think the original poster posed a good question about when are we at the point of "just being selfish."

How much more are YOU willing to give - to demonstrate how unselfish YOU are?

[Hoyt]

Hoyt' date=' do you read a FxCKING THING anybody else posts? REALLY?

Or does your Liberal brain automatically do a "Cliff Notes" scan for the key Liberal catch phrases hidded within?

I think the consensus here is that the system is flawed - argue with yourself.....

[/quote']

 

 

So what is your solution? -- let the system continue screwing us and the poor. Or do we finally change it?

 

As to efficiency -- Medicare and Medicaid are a lot more "efficient" than private insurers.

 

There is nothing wrong with profit, but the insurance industry is profiting by screwing sick people and the rest of us. Our society suffers.

 

 

Try responding without pretending you are John Wayne.

[milod]

Okay, out where I live there are three problems:

 

1. Insurance costs and battles between insurance firms and the three hospital/medical companies that own medical care in the entire state.

 

2. The fact that three medical care companies own the whole state - and decisions on care seem tied rather often to paying for equipment than the actual health needs of a patient.

 

3. Physicians wanting a 35-hour work week, a nice lifestyle and enough cash to pay off med school and then to buy a ranch or whatever.

 

Government-operated health care seems to offer the following "solutions."

 

1. Take over the operations of medical companies and insurance companies, in fact if not in stock ownership as they've done with car companies and financial firms. That would end the bickering and costs involved there.

 

2. Stop buying the equipment and give Canadian-style health care with long waiting lines so enough people croak and end the known fact that the majority of health care costs come in the first and last six months of people's lives whether they croak at 30 or 90.

 

3. Stop giving care and add up long lines of care as in Canada while physicians functionally receive federal paychecks.

 

.... Another fact: Medicare and Medicaid costs already are causing major problems for the states since Washington requires those and yet doesn't realistically fund them. Ditto medical costs for incarcerated prisoners that are statistically much higher than the population at large.

 

Finally, consider that really poor people get federal care, relatively wealthy folks and members of better corporate "benefit" care plans get relatively decent care and it's the farmer/rancher or "working poor" who get screwed by the entire system.

 

Frankly I don't see a working solution from the feds - or anywhere else. But then I'm just a cynical old country newspaperman on top of it all.

 

Another problem in the US compared to Eurocare: We lack consensus on many medical ethics issues. Without that consensus, we can plan on any federal messing with the system, whether I personally agree with any given solution or not, being the root of major political controversies and battles for long after I'm gone.

 

That's not "healthy." And frankly I think my making that comment is about as nonpartisan as one can get.

 

For example, a US Senator friend during the Hillarycare debates said we have to stop giving heart transplants to an 80-year-old woman with diabetes due to costs and projected lifespan. My response was, "Yeah, unless she's your mother."

 

That's a complex of issues that will haunt us for years. With a more homogeneous culture in European nations that hasn't arisen. Yet. But watch as immigrant populations increase in Europe...

[Hoyt]

Milrod, that's a pretty good response.

 

I would debate some points, such as the assertion that physicians will functionally receive federal pay checks. Actually, like under Medicare and Medicaid, physicians will make absolutely nothing if they do nothing and make more if they provide more care. The system rewards those who work longer and harder (whatever that means in terms of health care).

 

 

I do not believe the "wait times" are that severe in Canada or Europe, especially when one is really sick. i would also point out that people here are forced to wait for care -- even those with health insurance. For instance, employers have increased duductibles, copays, and employees' share of premiums. Employers' plans usually exclude coverage for hearth transplants, most mental health services, etc. Many folks can't even afford to go to a doc until it is too late because of their out-of-pocket costs. None of the "socialized" systems require long waits when you are sick (excluding a few isolated instances) -- unless you believe Rush Limbaugh who can afford to visit 10 docs in a week seeking illegal prescriptions. Our system of rationing care -- either you have good insurance, pay yourself, or are bleeding internally and so weak that the hospital can't deny stablizing you before returning them to the streets or dumping you somewhere -- is not working very well.

 

I'm sure we'll get into this more, but I do not believe it is "unsolvable" -- unless we do nothing. The mere fact that private health insurers recently offered to reduce health costs $2 Billion over a peiod of years is evidence that when the government forces it, solutions suddenly appear.

 

 

Maybe some of our Candadian, UK, etc., members will chime in on their experience. Of copurse, most people from such countries I've talked to really don't understand why we are arguing the case here and have failed to do almost nothing for so long.

[milod]

Hoyt....

 

My problem with the entire thing is that I trust the average bureaucrat, whether government or corporate, about as far as I can throw my Jeep.

 

I've been told that's an unfair and overbroad comment, but I've seen very little in my own life to bring any other conclusion. You don't really want to know horror stories I could tell from experience both as a person and as a news reporter.

 

As for waits... Too many happen too often under socialized medicine. But then too many unneeded "tests" cost much unneeded cash from insurers or the government to keep some of those medical "provider" bureaucrats happy and with appropriate funds for their own empire building.

 

Yeah, I'm cynical.

 

Worse to me, though, is the medical ethics discussion. I also know of far too many people who have ended up losing everything they had in retirement so they could have a low enough "personal worth" so the government would then cover all their health costs.

 

I keep wondering what may have happened after WWII had Congress made "health insurance" illegal. As it is, "health insurance" whether under federal programs or private purchase seem to me to simply be a way of increasing spending on "health care" bureaucratic empire building whether medically needed or not.

 

Again, in such a multi-cultural nation as the US, I become increasingly cynical over medical ethics...

 

And where I live, access to any health care is a major problem, too. When gas stations are 70 miles apart, guess how far it is to find a physician... Medicare and Medicaid play games you wouldn't believe, bringing a whole 'nother complex of problems that may or may not be a problem in more urbanized areas. Hospitals close because of additional medicare and medicaid costs... Ditto rural area clinics and nursing homes... Elderly residents are moved from nursing home to nursing home to make bureaucrats happy and the moves cost more and families and friends lose contact... etc., etc., etc.

 

Bottom line is that for truly rural areas at least, bureaucracies running health care is a disaster, whether governmental or corporate. I've watched it happen.

[Gilliangirl]

Our health care system is far from perfect, but I'm with Hoyt on this one. Capitalism is a fine concept, and I support it, but when it comes to your health, that's a different issue. I believe everyone should be entitled to health care, whether they can afford it or not. I work with people every day who have horrible diseases.... Multiple Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, Huntington's disease, etc. It's not their fault that they've had this happen to them. Why should only the rich get treatment?

 

Here's the bottom line..... you either pay now or you pay later, and you'll pay much worse later.

 

NeoCon, I hope you never lose your job and get sick

 

And, for the record, the line-ups you hear about up here are bad in emerg because people are using emerg for the wrong things. That's something that needs to change, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have a flu/virus/lower respiratory infection today and got an appointment this morning at a walk-in clinic. I waited 20 minutes. I've already come and gone, and got a free inhaler sample (can't breathe). And it didn't cost me a thing.

[badbluesplayer]

Learn some manners, do your homework, and try to write something thoughtful and intelligent like Gilligangirl. There's more to the issue that "I got my healthcare, the heck with everybody else". You other guys aren't bringing much to the table here.

 

Hey - and stop swearing.

[Hoyt]

Hoyt....

 

. . . . . . Worse to me' date=' though, is the medical ethics discussion. I also know of far too many people who have ended up losing everything they had in retirement so they could have a low enough "personal worth" so the government would then cover all their health costs. . . . . . .

[/quote']

 

Milrod, I'm enjoying the discussion.

 

You are correct, Medicare covers only a few days of nursing home care -- then, like you said, you pay for it yourself or have to spend all your assets to get on Medicaid. Thing is, at least the government is providing some coverage. Your private insurers and captialists won't touch it. So, we better be glad the government is stepping in, or most of us will eventually find ourselves literally dying in the streets.

 

Also, the "losing everything" applies now if you are not in retirement, but lose your job, then your health care coverage, and then become really sick.

 

To me the solution is to begin working on a system that coordinates care and spreads the cost among all of us as fairly as possible.

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

 

America was founded on rugged individualism and a free market' date=' allowing for people to get rich and to make their own sucsess, but at what point do we want do we draw the line where we are no longer promoting self reliance, but just being selfish?[/quote']

There's more to the issue that "I got my healthcare' date=' the heck with everybody else". [/quote']

 

 

it isnt someone else's responsibility to make sure i am healthy

weither or not it is a fair oppourtunity for EVERYONE to be healthy is the point in question

[KSG_Standard]

It seems to me that in these conversations about health care, we often conflate health care and health insurance. In the US, it is illegal for a health care provider to turn sick people away. If you don't have insurance, and you are sick or injured, ANY hospital MUST treat you regardless of your ability to pay or not. That is essentially gov't health care already. Granted, this system tends to drive up costs as the provider looks to recoup the costs on the backs of those that can pay.

 

Insurance is another subject, it's more complicated that we tend to make it. There are literally MILLIONS of people that can afford insurance, but that don't buy it, because they don't think they need it, or that they should have to pay for it. For example, kids/adults in their 20's. Young people still think that they are bulletproof and that they won't get sick or injured, so why pay for "preventative" care or insurance. People have cable T.V. and internet, and car payments and credit card payments and paying for these things takes precidence over health insurance. If everyone bought insurance, the rates would go down because the costs would be spread across a larger segment of the population, both sick and healthy, young and old.

 

The scariest things to me about a single payer system are fraud/abuse by the gov't agencies and a lack of choice in both care and provider. If you do some research into the matter, you will find that one of the largest areas of fraud and abuse is in the medicaire system. There are literally billions of dollars lost via fraud and abuse each and every year. If we have gov't controlled health care/health insurance, the agency that supports this system would be one of the largest, if not the largest agency/bureaucracy in the gov't, the waste/fraud/abuse would be astronomical. The gov't has proven itself to be the worst entity at managing money in history. As a person with a chronic disease, I want to be able to decide for myself which doctors to see and what treatments to utilize. I do not want a gov't bureaucrat to decide ANY of that for me.

 

In Canada and Europe, you have a system where the "rich" are paying for the social program and also paying for their own private care and insurance. You also have a system where you might die waiting for care because of inefficiencies, bureaucratic rules and regulations and a lack of providers. We see and read about Canadians and Brits coming to America to receive care that is not allowed within their own gov't system or because the wait times are too long.

 

Our system isn't perfect and I don't pretend to know what all of the details are in a fix for it. However, our system has created some of the finest doctors, pharmaceuticals, procedures and medical diagnostic equipment in the world. The profit motive and the competition between companies here can't be so easily discounted. Also, it seems to me that in a country with more than 300 million people (the USA) things might not work the same as say in Canada which has population of about 33 million.

 

My .02

[milod]

Hoyt and GG... <grin>

 

RE: Canadian-care... and medical bureaucracies and politics...

 

I dunno. Canadians I talk to seem to reflect worse problems than in the US in terms of access. But then, most Canadians I talk to are from similar regions to where I live. It's different in Rapid City and Calgary than it is many miles away where population densities are half a person or less per square mile.

 

In the olden days before governmental health systems or big corporate buyout bureaucracies, only 15-20 years ago these more isolated regions seem to have had better care.

 

And frankly it seems to me that the more bureaucrats supported by health care dollars, whether in government or "private" health care, the fewer dollars actually go to the individual. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats and always manage to find ways to expand their empires and spend more money on adding bureaucrats.

 

As I say, yeah, I'm cynical.

 

I'm increasingly cynical on where the health care spending goes in a heterogeneous society as opposed to a more homogeneous society, especially if done under government bureaucrats' political agendas. And political agendas also cover who gets what treatment. Period.

 

Note that I'm not terribly happy with the current increasingly bureaucratic system any more than any sort of socialized medicine. Frankly I think both lessen the potential bang for the buck in comparison to what I saw growing up. And even with all the extra expenditures, I note that lifespans are not significantly increased.

 

So where's the cash going? Bureaucrats. Period.

 

One possible savings in the US might come from federal tort reform in terms of medical malpractice lawsuits since malpractice insurance costs have put most independent rural (and even urban) physicians' offices out of business. But then the insurance companies will scream that they like to defend lawsuits, even ones with ridiculous jury awards, because that's an excuse to charge more for malpractice insurance. The lawyers groups will scream too.

 

I said I was cynical.

 

Finally I'll add that Cuba's health care system has been touted as wonderful for everyone. Yet although the US has forbade it, Canadian friends have been sending colostomy supplies and aspirin to Cuban friends and relatives for years since they can't get the stuff in Cuba. Why? Cash and politics.

 

The more paperwork taken to handle medicine, the less health care per dollar goes to the individual. That seems inherent in any system in today's world. It also seems that the truly wealthy will get the best possible care regardless whether they've got to travel elsewhere. Watch China or somebody develop a "patient pay" system somehow if the US gets Canada-care that sends thousands of folks to US doctors.

 

That leaves the question whether government is A) the best way to handle that paperwork or whether there's a more efficient alternative than government bureaucrats.

 

My choice is "B." The problem even with that is that it would take federal regulation into a number of areas to cut costs, such as malpractice tort reform, and into busting up health care conglomerates while cutting a degree of federal regulation.

 

Finally, when a clinic has a physician and two PAs working theoretical 40-hour work weeks for nice paychecks, then require some 10 hours weekly for meetings on how to ensure new equipment and specialty departments are funded by referrals, you've got real problems both in patient care and cost control.

 

The bottom line though is the degree to which you want even more party and regional politics playing the role of Big Brother determining who gets what sort of care. Notice I said "even more." It's already happening in the US.

 

And btw, if you think abortion conflicts have brought political struggles, wait until the hip replacement folks get even more into the act. Then there's more politics involved.

[Bruno690]

No system is perfect and for the record there is no "European" model for health insurance. Every country has a model all their own. Contrary to popular belief, rationing does exist; though to whom and for what are can be very different from country to country.

 

• If you retire in France from another country, under their new policies you are not covered.

 

• In Canada many very serious cases (particularly in OB/GYN) are sent to the US for treatment. Also many "minor" issues (cleft pallet, etc) are sent to the US for treatment, because of multi year witing periods.

 

The basis of the argument seems to be, to give coverage to the poor. In the US the poor and elderly (the two costliest populations to insure) are already covered under medicare and medicaid.

 

Medical help is not free!!!

 

From Alphonse Crespo...Swiss orthopedic surgeon and Currently director of research at the Institut Constant de Rebecque, a Swiss think tank founded in 2005 and author of:

 

Esculape Foudroyé Les Belles Lettres 1991, ISBN 2-251-39008-1

Black Market Medicine an Ethical alternative to State Control [1](http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin054.pdf)

Outlawing Medicine [2] (http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/crespo.pdf)

The End of Welfare and its effect on the Poor[3] (http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/crespo.pdf)

 

 

"Citizens always wind up paying for health care, either through taxes, insurance premiums or out-of-pocket costs. As it is, European governments are spending through the nose on health care — and in many cases they still can’t match the quality of care available in America."

 

Agreed we pay a lot for quality health insurance, but so does the rest of the world.

 

Germany has arguably the best medical care in Europe and their system is going broke. The short term fix by Merkel was to raise the employee contribution of the medical tax by 0.5%. Now Germans pay @ 16% of their income to either private or public insurance. Yes, I said private insurance. Many high wage earners in Germany do not feel they get adequate care in the public system and pay for insurance outside of the public sector; and that number is growing everyday. That being said, Americans will not agree to a 16% tax increase!

 

The solution may need to be a blend of what we call a "European" model and our current system. Additionally, we need to make reforms to our existing system. As suggested by David Gratzer:

 

• “Make health insurance more like every other type of insurance”— and allow individuals to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars.

• “Foster competition” by getting rid of absurd government regulations that drive up costs.

• Reform Medicaid, “probably the worst government-run program in America,” by following the lead of welfare reform and turning the program over to the states.

• Reconsider the fundamental concepts behind Medicare, especially its wage and price controls.

• Re-think the role of the Food and Drug Administration and how its work drives up prescription drug costs.

[KSG_Standard]

Good post Bruno690! Great points!

[RudyH]

Bruno690:

 

I was a bit disappointed to read some of the first posts in this thread because there seem to be some misconceptions. It is nice to see your post here, as it is the correct way of seeing this issue.

 

The aspect of systems of socialized medicine that we should all be concerned about is that rationing care hits the elderly especially hard and, in effect, kills a great number of people who otherwise would have lived longer had they had adequate care.

 

President Obama, in a speech about two weeks ago, said explicitly that the new system would have a component in it for reducing the number of trips to clinics and hospitals by the elderly.

[Hoyt]

KSG -- I think you will find there is just as much, if not more fraud, under private insurance. It's just the private insurers don't care as long as they can keep increasing premiums. Medicare goes after fraud.

 

 

I think it was Milrod that mentioned "malpractice." It is certainly a problem, but most physicians pay between 3 and 8% of their receipts for such insurance. Hardly enough to put someone out of business, unless they have a very small patient load. I'm not questioning the need for reasonable tort reform, but the fact is there are bad health care providers out there and some "reasonable award is justified for the worst cases.

 

Private insurers spend 20 to 30% of our premiums on salaries, bonuses, return to shareholders, administration, marketing, etc. We could eliminate most of those costs with a single payer system, care for many more people than we do now, and provide better care.

 

But, the point is that everyone deserves some coverage and coverage they can count upon -- and that will take a coordinated effort to accomplish. Some of us might have to sacrifice, but I think most of us will be satisfied.

[milod]

"President Obama, in a speech about two weeks ago, said explicitly that the new system would have a component in it for reducing the number of trips to clinics and hospitals by the elderly."

 

Yup, as my left-side Democrat US Senator friend noted some years ago, it's probably too much of a drag on the system to care for the elderly as much as currently is done. It's pretty well proven that excluding birth, the six months prior to death are the most expensive.

 

If you're only going to live six months, why waste the money.

 

No, I don't mean that in a lot of ways, but that's essentially what I've been told, and not by right wingers but from some pretty highly-placed folks on the left.

 

This is much of what I'm talking about when I say there will be major problems without a true consensus on health care ethics as politics and costs as well as bureaucracies get increasingly involved.

 

It's also not a misconception, btw, when you're hearing things from Democrat members of Congress as being benefits toward paying for this system or that...

 

Granted, I'm now going to show a strong rural prejudice, but federal health care programs already have virtually destroyed any sort of "local" health care in rural areas for a number of reasons. Unfortunately I've had to "cover" such change as a rural journalist. It's not fun to know that the little old widowed rancher has to get someone to drive her an hour or two to a clinic when 15 years ago she went to her local physician. Or that the older farmer has to bypass an empty hospital to be put into a big one 100 miles away or more so his family can't visit. Ah, the efficiencies of bureaucracies and federal medical programs already in operation.

 

Yeah, those stories are from the American "Outback," but just think about the implications for the future.

 

Also, if you think 30 percent overhead from private insurers is bad, start making comparisons with current federal health care programs.

 

Then too, consider that the cost of malpractice insurance is paid by the consumer, not the physician, clinic or hospital. In order to make up that cost, and to increase revenue for stuff, not only are the regular bills higher, but there is an increasing tendency to refer to more costly specialists and more costly tests not so much for care but to increase revenues. That's a fact I've seen and have had reported to me by physicians...

 

Bottom line again: Bureaucrats federal or corporate will protect their turf and increase revenues for pet projects and/or reasons to increase their little empires.

[Homz]

Side point: I wouldn't want to see the insurance rates for OBGYN's after yesterday.

 

I know in some states it already far more then many can afford and has caused them to move to different states. The alternate states are often ones that have government enforced maximum rates. So in one way or another the government seems to be involved.

[KSG_Standard]

KSG -- I think you will find there is just as much' date=' if not more fraud, under private insurance. It's just the private insurers don't care as long as they can keep increasing premiums. Medicare goes after fraud...[/quote']

 

Maybe, but the published statistics on waste, fraud and abuse are staggering. Private companies have to report and file detailed paperwork and they have to answer to stockholders as well...

 

 

Check out this report from the GAO...

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05855t.pdf

[Hoyt]

Bruno690:

 

I was a bit disappointed to read some of the first posts in this thread because there seem to be some misconceptions. It is nice to see your post here' date=' as it is the correct way of seeing this issue.

 

The aspect of systems of socialized medicine that we should all be concerned about is that rationing care hits the elderly especially hard and, in effect, kills a great number of people who otherwise would have lived longer had they had adequate care.

 

President Obama, in a speech about two weeks ago, said explicitly that the new system would have a component in it for reducing the number of trips to clinics and hospitals by the elderly.

 

[/quote']

 

 

Obviously, Rudy, you have never watched some poor elderly person splitting pills in quarters to make it four days rather than one -- even though some pills are not meant to be split because the ingredients aren't homogeneous.

 

And, you forget the rationing that goes on for people who are too poor to get care until they are close to death, then it's often too late.

 

Your last sentence is really off -- Obama is talking about alternatives to clinic and hospital visits. For instance, if we improve peoples' diets, increase availability of preventive treatments, develop better early interventions and detection, etc., people won't have to visit hospitals as often for angioplasty and similar procedures. If we improve outcomes, people won't have to visit clinics and hospitals as often. I'm sorry, but your interpretation is quite funny but I am sure resonates with the right wingers here.

 

 

Finally, for those who think there private insurance isn't limited -- call and see what the life time limits are; call and see if bone marrow transplants are covered; call and see if heart transplants are covered; call and see what the mental health coverage is. While you are at it, check and see what nursing home coverage is available. Then, call your employer and say -- if I get too sick to work, are you going to pay my insurance premiums forever, or will my coverage lapse?

[hans]

I must say I'm pretty happy with the national health care system in my country (Denmark). Everything is paid through income tax, and even though I've never been to hospital in my 37 year old life I have no problems showing a little solidarity to the less fortunate, hell, I might be the one in dire need of expensive medical care some day!

[Hoyt]

 

Maybe' date=' but the published statistics on waste, fraud and abuse are staggering. Private companies have to report and file detailed paperwork and they have to answer to stockholders as well...

 

 

Check out this report from the GAO...

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05855t.pdf

[/quote']

 

KSG, I've read that and many other GAO reports. GAO reports on how much they uncover and recover in Medicare/caid fraud and abuse -- that is good. Their fraud and abuse actions are also a deterrent. Finally, with one payer, we can stop a lot of fraud, overutilization, poor quality care, and the like.

 

Private insurers' main report is how much they made. Have you ever seen how private insurance companies "build up" their premiums. Basically, they add up what they think it will cost to cover a population (including fraud, overutilization, etc.) and tack on a percentage to cover administration, marketing, bonuses, and profits. As long as they can keep increasing the premium, the percentage they rake off increases. They don't care -- so they seldom go after fraud.

 

I think that under a single payer system more fraud will be detected, recovered and prevented than under the current system. One example, you get caught for fraud and you are excluded from participating as a provider. Under the current system, fraudulent providers get exluded by Medicare, then they just go steal from someone private insurer or those without insurance. A coordinated system will be an improvement.