How would national health plan affect ER?

[Notmuchlonger]

Ya now is a good time for a Hitlergodzilla

[Wags]

Originally Posted by DallasGuy

How does the US fund the war in Iraq? By running huge deficits, of course. I always find it interesting that people don't want to fund universal health care but don't say anything about all of the money that the US spends all over the rest of the world...on wars and military bases and "bribes" to other countries to "do it our way". I'm guessing that health care would still be more expensive than a war in Iraq, but the idea is still the same...why not take care of the people in our own country first instead of blowing the money everywhere else but here?

Careful you do not want to be called a ////.

I guess it would be by mortgaging the future of our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren to fight the Iraq War and to pay for the brides which you alluded to. As for blowing things up hey that is called col·lat·er·al damage.

When poor people and common folk start giving large amounts of $$$$ and lining the pockets of our elected officials in the White House and in Congress (like the lobbyist and special interest groups) then maybe health care will become a priority. NO $$$$ equals no infleuence and no voice.

We've got to clear some of the room out of the prisons so we can put the bad guys in there, like the pedophiles and the politicians. Kinky Friedman

GOD BLESS

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by Notmuchlonger

I know there is a nursing shortage. I have no idea if there is a Dr shortage in the US.

There is maldistribution (chasing the high income specialties) and possibly an early real shortage. Primary care is entering early crisis mode: boomers aging and needing more care, primary doctors retiring early , while they have the lowest income, strong responsibility and highest on-call burden.

Generally, in my opinion, a patient with undifferentiated symptoms gets best cared for by starting with primary care doctors (internal medicine, peds, etc.) because they don't feel they have to immediately do every test there is to do -- they can refer if the problem persists or is unclear. (Canada: internal medicine is not generally a primary care area, but more like hospitalists here).

There is a movement afoot to fix some of these issues (e.g. Advanced Medical Home - recognizes reimbursement for prevention, coordination of referrals, front line responsibility, counselling, family conferences, etc.).

[REWahoo]

Originally Posted by Rustic23

ReWahoo,
At what cost?

There would definitely be a significant cost and how it would impact each of us I have no idea. But I do have one point of reference:

We were at the top of the 15% tax bracket in 2007 and we paid more for health insurance premiums ($5,000 deductible) than we did in income tax. So in my case, our income taxes could double and if we got health coverage out of the deal we wouldn't be any worse off.

YMMV.

[donheff]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

The uninsured numbers are felt by many to be understated because they require a full year of no insurance. The sequence seems to be: have a job and be insured; get sick; become unable to work; lose insurance. Then comes the sell-off of personal savings or possessions, and finally (in some cases) personal bankruptcy.

This is what is so frustrating. The people with problems are not all (or even mostly) freeloaders who chose their bed and should now lie in it. They are our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers. Sh** happens but you shouldn't lose everything you have due to health care bills. Other civilized countries don't allow this but we do and the reform nay sayers just blame the victims.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Originally Posted by Wags

Careful you do not want to be called a ////.

I guess it would be by mortgaging the future of our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren to fight the Iraq War and to pay for the brides which you alluded to. As for blowing things up hey that is called col·lat·er·al damage.

When poor people and common folk start giving large amounts of $$$$ and lining the pockets of our elected officials in the White House and in Congress (like the lobbyist and special interest groups) then maybe health care will become a priority. NO $$$$ equals no infleuence and no voice.

We've got to clear some of the room out of the prisons so we can put the bad guys in there, like the pedophiles and the politicians. Kinky Friedman

GOD BLESS

My vote for the most inexplicable and disjointed post of 2008. But the year is young.

[armor99]

OK.... here is a small suggestion that I have. Something small.... but I think that the insurance companies could start doing this to bring down the cost of medical care. Imagine that... an actual idea to make things slightly better.
It has always amazed me that a medical insurance company will pay for triple heart bypass surgery, but they will NOT pay for a gym membership. How about the insurance companies start working out deals with gym chains to give discounts and even refunds to folks that are actively participating in going to a local gym? Let's face it, excercise done early enough, cures almost everything. They would have to work out some sort of system to verifiy who is really going etc, but I would think it should not be too hard. And there you go.... people now have an addtional incentive to go to the gym (a lower insurance rate), and the insurance company has an incentive to pay for the gym membership (a much lower chance of medical problems later). Small... simple... far from perfect.... but still a start...

[Martha]

Not a bad idea armor99. My BCBS plan pays for gym memberships.

I wouldn't say exercise cures almost everything. We all die anyway.

[Rustic23]

OK, so we get insurance to pay for gym memberships. Will everyone be required to have one? Will everyone be required to prove they use it? Will the Federal Government subsidies it?

Now lets look at what it will cost us. If I am an insurance company and I need to supply a gym membership to all my customers, I am going to go out and find out how much a gym membership cost per year, say $600, then I will add administrative cost on that say $600, and will then charge each of my customers $100 per month more for their health insurance. There is no free lunch.

REWahoo,
Just a guess, but by the time the Government bureaucracy is finished your income tax would triple, that is unless you want the fee gym membership plan.

[REWahoo]

Originally Posted by Rustic23

REWahoo,
Just a guess, but by the time the Government bureaucracy is finished your income tax would triple, that is unless you want the fee gym membership plan.

Depends on what the women at the gym look like...

[Trek]

Everyone who thinks the poor, sick and old should just die off and make way for the young, wealthy and healthy, raise your hand!

[Lusitan]

Universal/national healthcare would make my FIRE plans easier to plan out, because the variable for health costs would be more predictable. And I would expect the increased predictability would result in an earlier FIRE for me.

[Coach]

I'll be depending on my employer allowing me to continue in the group plan after retirement, with me paying the full premium. This makes me a bit nervous -- they've retrenched repeatedly on retiree benefits in the past. So some version of guaranteed availability and some better predictability about cost would make me more comfortable in retiring.

Coach

[Notmuchlonger]

Originally Posted by Trek

Everyone who thinks the poor, sick and old should just die off and make way for the young, wealthy and healthy, raise your hand!

You mean like Logans Run! Cool!

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Renew! Renew!!!

[growing_older]

I believe that exactly the same principle works in medicine. Not all doctors are created equal. Some are better than others, and those that do better work, typically charge higher prices.

So now let's say that the govt now runs health care. There is no competition, as they now control the price of medicine, services, salaries, etc. This will have some very dramatic effects immediately.

I think most of the effects you allude to here are already taking place. Insurance companies and HMOs already have strong influence on the price of medicine, as well as on what procedures are allowed and how doctors practice. Consumers are rarely able to shop among competitive providers to gain the benefits you ascribe to other businesses. Nor are they usually able to switch carriers when they get unfavorable rulings, since they are now pre-existing conditions.

Perhaps this trend would be increased under a government program. Or perhaps the worst of the "profit" motives would be reduced and the problems might be reduced accordingly. I think the details of any program proposal will make all the difference.

[lawman3966]

Being from Canada originaly, I'm frequently amazed by the conviction that national health care is impossible or unaffordable for the U.S., since the U.S. lays claim to being wealthy, and in fact still has a higher GDP per capita than most industrialized nations. This begs the question as to how other nations, most of which of are poorer than the U.S., have done it. The answer of course is that the U.S. could afford it, but has chosen not to.

This is sometimes presented as a dichotomy between universality and quality. But, when I last looked at the relevant data, Canada spent _less_ money per person on national health care than the U.S. did, managed to cover every single person in the country for all conditions (new and pre-existing), and boasted an average life expectancy three years longer than that of the U.S. So, where are the vaunted superior results of the U.S. system? There may be anecdotes here and there. But, I suspect on the whole this alleged quality advantage is myth, not fact.

With universal health care, taxes _would_ rise. But, the cost of insurance to private citizens, employers, and the atrocious bureaucratic costs to all concerned would likely decline by even more.

I am struck by the fact that private sector U.S. taxpayers seem ok with the fact that they pay for govt insurance for the poor (Medicaid), for those over 65 (Medicare), for all state and federal employees, get no govt health benefits themselves, but believe that the sky will fall if the govt system is expanded to include the people who are already paying for everyone else's health care.

Both countries already massive amounts of govt paid health care. It doesn't seem either radical or strange to me to extend the benefits to people who already pay for this care to be eligible for it themselves. This is the logic employed in _every_ industrialized nation in the world but the U.S. While funding is an issue in those countries, they have worked their way through it. I suspect the U.S. will eventually move in this direction.

[Rustic23]

Lawman,
I have not researched medical research in Canada, so I really don't know the quality of health care in Canada. Do you have a Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, or an area like Houston's Texas Medical center with 13 renowned hospitals and two specialty institutions, two medical schools, four nursing schools, and schools of dentistry, public health, pharmacy to name a few.

Are we to assume if we go to a Universal Health Care, like Canada, we can expect a 3 year increase in our life expectancy, or could there be other factors that figure into this statistic?

If the US did the Canadian system where would Canadians go that could not get service in Canada?

State and Federal Employees get 'government health care' just like Exon, US Steel and other corporations employees get health care. It is a cost of employment.

The United States is not like the rest of the world, does Canada have 20,000,000+ illegal citizens they provide health care to?

[Martha]

Rustic23, I am not positive, but I thought the 20 million aliens number included both legals and illegals.