big news in healthcare

[Danielle_E.]

Please read this and answer why would those of you who are against universal healthcare in the U.S. be so opposed given these facts

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm

 

[LowriseMinis]

Please read this and answer why would those of you who are against universal healthcare in the U.S. be so opposed given these facts
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm

# Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US

That proves that people living with universal health care are sicker, since they go to the doctor more and spend more time in the hospital, so there!

 

[Danielle_E.]

That proves that people living with universal health care are sicker, since they go to the doctor more and spend more time in the hospital, so there!

Nice sarcasm there!

.

When we get sick we don't hve to worry about losing our homes and we seek the help we need and not do without what is so vital, your health!!!!! Food and health, if you don't have those well you won't be around too long.

 

[Elsa]

In order to increase access, cost would increase and quality would decrease. It's called the iron triangle. I don't know that many people who want "socialized" health care would be very happy with the decrease in quality as a result.

Now I'm still curious about where the decrease in quality comes in. No one would be forcing everyone to use the nationalized health care. If we did have it, but someone chose to stay with their private insurer, would the quality of their care go down at all? If so, why?

In order to cover every individual at a reasonable cost, quality would be substantially sacrificed. We are a very technology, specialist-oriented society. In the past, physicians were given incentives to utilize tests and technology, these days they are rewarded for outcomes and following clinical protocols. In a universal health care system, don't expect anything fancy. A universal health care system would be the most successful for preventative care, not in secondary or tertiary care. The people who would benefit for that system, are the ones needing annual check ups etc. If you had a serious condition, your choice would be private insurance in order to receive the comprehensive care you would need.

I would assume that when they talk about a universal health care system they are following a Medicare guidline where you are covered through the government for Medicare A (inpatient care) and pay an extra premium for outpatient and regular visits (Medicare B) if you so choose (this would be Private Insurance in a universal plan), as well as Prescriptions (Medicare D).

To answer your question, no, private care should not be affected (I would hope!). Insurance companies do bargain with hospitals for a lowered, fixed price already for procedures. This is why an insurance company will pay less for a certain procedure as opposed to an uninsured person paying out of pocket. However, with the additional access to care and more utilizing the system, you can only imagine the additional patients going in for routine check ups. I don't see this as a bad thing because a lot more serious conditions would be prevented. However, any expensive tests would not covered by a government plan. Also, with more people having insurance and the costs absorbed by the hospitals, private insurance premiums would automatically go down. With a universal plan, you would still be expected to pay out of pocket regardless.

 

[Minimor]

In a universal health care system, don't expect anything fancy.

Please give some examples of those things which you consider "fancy" which would not be covered (in your belief) under a universal health care system.

However, any expensive tests would not covered by a government plan.

Again, please provide a few examples of the expensive tests you refer to? And, do you know this for fact, or this is simply your own belief of how things would work?

 

[Danielle_E.]

Thanks Elsa for your explanation. I appreciate your opinion on this since you are in the field of health. I have a question for you and those that do't think that a "universal" health care would work for the U.S. Given the stats albeit stats from quite a few years ago in that link, would "preventive care" not help in keeping the high costs down as well as not endangering the premium care that your U.S. residents get now? In Canada "prevention" is a big thing. I take for example my daughter who was just seen in emergency here yesterday and who will now be going through gallbladder surgery (removal). Lets say she would have been in the U.S. with no healthcare and would have not gone in to seek help when she did. The gallbladder could have become major infected and could have caused lifethreatening circumstances. The cost of removing that gallbladder now is lower than someone who would have waited and would have had to have emergency surgery and additional medical procedures (drugs and longer stay in hospital) etc. To make an analogy, if you have a car that is having problems and you don't take it in to have it fixed immediately the chances of additional problems grows quite a lot and you end up with more problems and in the end higher costs to fix it. The system in the U.S. as it is now employs so many more people than is required, hence the fact that now as they say it costs 40% more than any other system. It's nice it employs so many people but at what cost to the patient? Premiums are so high for good coverage, sometimes more than a mortgage payment which boggles my mind and the cost of your drugs, same drugs we have here, are so much more.

 

[Charley]

I'm guessing... but with a major increase in patients there will not be more doctors, nurse practicioners, etc. So the time spent on each patient will decrease and the quality of care due to this will decrease.

So in other words it is an advantage at this moment that so many don't have health care and don't seek help when it's needed. The same problem would happen that you mention above if EVERYONE could afford to pay the insurance premiums now that insurance companies charge. So it's a matter of numbers, how many people aren't insured in order to keep your level of quality where it's at now.

I guess I just can't get my head around the fact that, like I said in my other response, that you are willing to spend billions and billions on war expenses, or on bailouts, or sending relief money to all sorts of other countries to help people there but you won't help out your fellow americans by enabling them to get something as basic as healthcare. I still don't get it.

Danielle, have I done something to make you so angry? I have not previously posted on this topic and have not expressed my opinion. If I have offended you, as it appears, I am truly sorry.

Lois

 

[Elsa]

In a universal health care system, don't expect anything fancy.

Please give some examples of those things which you consider "fancy" which would not be covered (in your belief) under a universal health care system.

However, any expensive tests would not covered by a government plan.

Again, please provide a few examples of the expensive tests you refer to? And, do you know this for fact, or this is simply your own belief of how things would work?

tests are constantly being "improved" (truth is, many newer tests have been proven to be no more effective than older ones) and that takes a lot of funding.

ie. a cardiology CT scanner is a $1 million machine. Who will pay for this?

A government fund could not cover several expensive tests per patient. As of right now, the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2018. The following decades will be spent trying to figure out a way to care for the aging population.

 

[Minimor]

So you must then find it a bit unusual that Canada has technology such as this???

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/120192.php

excerpts from the above linked page:

Recently, University Health Network (UHN) became the first institution in the world to have three 320-slice CT scanners, as Toronto Western Hospital's (TWH) scanner began clinical operation. The world's most advanced Computer Tomography technology, the 320-slice CT can cut time-to-treatment by two-thirds for stroke patients, help cancer specialists map tumours for treatment in greater detail than ever before, and allow cardiac disease to be diagnosed with unparalleled confidence.

Stroke identification at Toronto Western Hospital

At TWH, the 320-slice CT is located in the emergency department, the only installation of its kind in the world. In an environment where every second counts, the speed of the scanner greatly benefits patients with serious trauma and those exhibiting signs of stroke.

Cardiac diagnostics at Toronto General Hospital

In 2007, UHN's first 320-slice CT went into operation at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre located at the Toronto General Hospital (TGH) and at the time, was one of only five in the world.

Perhaps Canada isn't quite the backwoods, have=-nothing medical community that some think it is?

 

[Sonya]

Has anyone checked out the Burton Reports:

Burton report

Burton report

There are many different articles, some of which are older, you can go to their main page and search for different things on healthcare systems, programs, etc...

Just the couple that I posted above talk about many of the things we are discussing on this thread. Interesting reads, if you want to check them out.

 

[Danielle_E.]

Danielle, have I done something to make you so angry? I have not previously posted on this topic and have not expressed my opinion. If I have offended you, as it appears, I am truly sorry.
Lois

Huh??????

angry at you? I was replying to your statement the first sentence and nothing more and I sure as heck am not angry at what you posted, sorry if you thought that

I'm guessing... but with a major increase in patients there will not be more doctors, nurse practicioners, etc. So the time spent on each patient will decrease and the quality of care due to this will decrease.

You said that you will have a decrease in quality of care due to a possible increase in people with coverge, specifically addressing "universal" type health care. I took to mean that if Universal health care came into play and that the people who have no health care at the moment were all able to afford a healthcare program to cover themselves and their children that you felt that those paying high premiums would lose the "quality" care they are use to. Correct? So if all Americans were insured under the system you have now (high premiums) that the quality of care would suffer as well, so you are talking numbers of insured causing a decline in quality. That is what I understood the way you worded it. I posted a link that talks about the "myths" being used to oppose a universal type of system.

My questions still stand to all that oppose it here on this forum, trying to understand why you as a nation, would rather spend billions and billions on war or helping other people in other countries, or paying bailouts, when your own do without something as basic as healthcare? I am not speaking about people who refuse to work for whatever reason, I am talking about the people that have lost their jobs or have low paying jobs, etc. etc. Why would you not want to help your own people first and foremost? Why would a nation deny helping a child or children that have no choice in all of this if their parent is a single mom or their parents truly can''t afford high premiums? I don't know what the answer is to your healthcare system. I have said it before that I don't think the system that Canada has is the way for the U.S. to go because as it is it would throw out so many insurance companies and their employees out of work but there has to be, as Obama proposed, a type of affordable program that all could buy into that at least they would have some form of coverage. I will say it again, doesn't make any sense to me that the U.S. would have a system as archaic (3rd world type) where only the rich and upper middle class) can afford something as basic as healthcare in an industrialized and progressive country.

 

[Elsa]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]From what I've heard about Obama's proposals, his goal is to get those 47 million people who are currently uninsured into the system and offer them some type of coverage, whether they receive it from employers or through a public health plan. Additionally, he wants to cut costs for those who currently do have coverage and bring quality care to the uninsured.

In order to avoid the chaotic consumer reaction to change, he says, "if you like what you have, you can keep it." He claims the right to buy health insurance does little no good when you are still stuck with a policy that can cost you up to $10,000 annually. To increase access to those who are unable to afford coverage, he proposes a lower age entrance to Medicare payments. This would allow individuals to buy into the Medicare program at 55 or 60. Sllowing people to buy into Medicare at 55 or 60, would protect people with early retirement or those that have been laid off. However, the Medicare fund is already suffering at the hands of the aging population.

Another approach is to establish a public health insurance plan, a basic package offering comprehensive benefits. Obama's promise of "you can keep it if you like it" may sound like a good deal, but the almost certain increase in taxes to support a public health plan may push those who currently can afford their premiums to become a burden on the already weighed down system. Most people still receive coverage through employers, despite the majority of uninsured who have at least one fulltime worker in the household. By mandating that employers offer health insurance, which would provide a significant portion with health benefits who currently have none, without giving a hefty tax cut to those businesses they can't possibly offset the cost. This would force small businesses to lower wages or possibly drive several small businesses into bankruptcy.

To make the system more efficient, he would also like to cut a total of $700 billion per year in his budget.

"Health reform means trying to bring insurance to those who don't have it without making the federal budget deficit even deeper, controlling the growth in health spending without denying patients what they think they need, limiting unnecessary procedures without hampering the autonomy of doctors to do what they think is best."

Obama strives to increase access and quality to the uninsured, while simultaneously cutting costs all together.

"President Obama has said that he and Congress will make both groups happy by cutting costs for those who have coverage and by bringing quality care to those who currently have no insurance."

Despite the recession, healthcare spending is projected to increase 5%, while GDP is shrinking by 0.2%. Without a magic money tree we can't possible support the factors increasing cost, such as advances in technology and specialist care, and consumers are under the mistaken belief that these are necessary evils.

The first step in health care reform needs to limit the use of expensive technology and specialist care. Without such managed care, Medicaid will suffer with a substantially higher enrollment.

 

[McBunz]

Seems to me that universal health care would lower the cost of insurance... new insurance companies would need to open... competition for customers

would would lower rates.. Drs. would get paid so much for a procedure instead of gouging the patient for what ever. Yes you would probably need more

doctors... nurses and health care people but that would create good jobs.. I cannot understand the... "I got mine so to heck with the ones who

can't afford it attitude". Sure isn't what any of you were taught in Sunday school now is it..

 

[Elsa]

Yes you would probably need moredoctors... nurses and health care people but that would create good jobs..

There is a severe shortage of doctors and nurses. Unlike Canada, where family

medicine accounts for almost 40% of the residency positions for graduating students, the number of U.S. medical graduates going into family medicine has been falling in the last decades.

Family medicine wasn't even recognized as a specialty until the 1970's in the US, even though primary care is the most cost-effective way to help patients maintain health. One problem is that many nurses in particular, don't want to quit working to teach because teaching pays less.

estimates show the number of family doctors must grow by 39 percent during the next 14 years to keep up with the nation’s needs.

 

[LowriseMinis]

So, we'll simply see a shift in graduates in the future, won't we? With increased demand pay will be more competitive, and students will start choosing family medicine over other specialties, won't they?

 

[Jill]

If we move towards a socialized health care system, doctors will work harder and earn less. That will make the profession less and less appealing and the shortage of family (and other) doctors even more pronounced.

There's a reason people in Canada who can afford to seak treatment in the USA do so (better and faster service).

 

[Elsa]

So, we'll simply see a shift in graduates in the future, won't we? With increased demand pay will be more competitive, and students will start choosing family medicine over other specialties, won't they?

ideally, the state would cap how many specialists can be licensed. There are, however, still shortages of specialists in some areas. Surgeons will always make more than a family practitioner (150K vs 190L annually) A shortage won't necessarily mean higher wages, most likely, just open positions in certain areas.

 

[LowriseMinis]

And there is a reason Americans who can't afford medical treatment in the U.S. die.

http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/uninsure...r-coverage.html

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a groundbreaking report, Care without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, which estimated that 18,000 adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. Subsequently, The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance. To find out what this means for people across the nation, Families USA has generated the first-ever state-level estimates of the number of deaths due to lack of health insurance. Our estimates are based on both the Institute of Medicine and The Urban Institute methodologies applied to state-level data.

So we're going with an estimate of 22,000 adults (just adults) in 2006. Let's say that's an awful estimate. We'll half it. 11,000 adults died in ONE YEAR due to lack of medical coverage. That is almost three times the number of American lives claimed during the entire span of the Iraq war. Slightly less than four times the number of people who died in the September 11th attacks. That's more than the number of people who die each year due to drowning, smoke inhalation, surgical complications, or accidental shootings.

This link is great. You can click on your state and see how many people in YOUR state die due to lack of medical coverage.

We are a first world country. A great nation. I do not understand WHY it is acceptable that we have people bankrupting themselves to get medical care. Why we have people going without and dying because of it.

To all you doctors out there, I'm sorry if you're making $20,000 less a year. I really am. You do difficult work and you deserve every penny you get. But it is unacceptable to me that even one American man, woman or child dies due to lack of medical care.

 

[LowriseMinis]

ideally, the state would cap how many specialists can be licensed. There are, however, still shortages of specialists in some areas. Surgeons will always make more than a family practitioner (150K vs 190L annually) A shortage won't necessarily mean higher wages, most likely, just open positions in certain areas.

I wish I could find the name of this documentary I saw a while ago. Someone went around to several of the other countries that have some form of national health care-if I remember right he went to Canada, Japan, England, Germany, and Singapore. He was talking with one of the British (or German, I can't remember!) doctors, wondering if under their system she's feeling a big hit to her income. She said the difference between what she makes under national healthcare and what she'd make in a free market is basically the difference between affording a $60,000 luxury car, or a $45,000 luxury car.

I'm not saying they absolutely wouldn't take a hit to their income, but "doctor" would still be a well-paid profession, wouldn't it? And obviously the money is a draw, but how many people go into medical school to help people vs. the number who are just in it for the cash?

 

[Pepipony]

So what if Drs have to work harder? Maybe it isnt the time thats the problem, but their education and attitudes. I think we should make it that if you go to the Dr for a problem and they dont fix it, then you, nor insurance, get charged. Just like we expect mechanics etc to do. In my search for a dx ( and it isnt some oddball out there illness) I saw many Drs who ran many tests which cost insurance nearly 6 figures. With NO correct DX. Sorry, that is WAY wrong.

Healthcare is broken, you can have something that Drs want to treat one way, but insurance says no. WRONG.