Single Payer Healthcare - Help Me Out, Here...

[iamjoy]

I have waffled on this issue because I am conflcited.

I have talked to people in England and heard that the system is not perfect or idyllic. It is fairly easy to see a general practitioner, but there can be long waits for specialists. Many people there have supplemental insurance and get in to see doctors more quickly with that. I also worry that if we go to a single payer system, we will lose the customer service aspect. Have you been to the hospital lately? They are trying to make them more pleasant. Many of them have or are building private rooms with DVD players, flat screen televisions, small refrigerators. Of course we're paying for that and it's debatable whether it's really necessary. But environment (atmosphere) really has an affect on healing. Maybe we'd still have that, but I think part of the reason for it is hosptials "competing" to be the best.

Another problem with a single payer system is - well, it's a Republican line but look at how the government screws up everything else and imagine them in charge of healthcare. FEMA/Katrina comes to mind. But the fact is government agencies can work well when properly funded and run by competent people rather than political appointees. That's what I mean by problem. The Republicans would be like Scrooge when it came to funding healthcare. Currently, the quality of care you get depends on how good your health insurance is. In a Single Payer system, the quality of healthcare would depend on whether or not Democrats or Republicans were in charge.

BUT,
I was listening to an NPR story on the GM/UAW talks. It seems like having to pay for healthcare is having a negative impact on our ability to compete in a global marketplace. This is especially true of companies trying to fund retiree healthcare when people are living longer and when medical technology has provided us with marvelous but expensive treatments for previously incurable conditions. So, moving to a single payer system may well help corporations lower their labor costs and keep good jobs in the US.

So, there it is - the Good, the Bad, the Ugly

[bobbolink]

1. One Question for you... one part of the issue. Are you only interested in what's good for YOU--

DVD players, flat screen TVs, refrigerators...all the luxuries that YOU want.

Or, do you want a healthy country where EVERYONE actually gets health care?

As Oprah and Michael Moore said Thursday on Oprah.... What is your core belief... Do you BELIEVE that the child of a gas station attendant should get the same care as the child of a CEO?

Or, is it all about YOU?

Is there some reason you can't provide your OWN dvd player, refrigerator, etc?

[emilyg]

10. I keep thinking of how screwed up the VA is.

[Ron Green]

19. Compared to what?

As a service-connected disabled Vet, I have received much of my medical care for the past 40 years from VA facilities. I've always experienced better care there than at private hospitals and clinics.

[iamjoy]

11. I Acknowledged The "Luxury" Problem

a lot of these luxuries are over the top and done because hospitals are "competing."

And of course it is worth it for it to be scaled back some so everyone can have healthcare.

But some things that seem inane really do make a difference. I would hope we wouldn't lose all of the things - they should be available to the child of a a hotel maid as well as the child of a CEO.

[aquart]

15. So you don't want Social Security or Medicare, either?

"The government screws up everything" is a pitifully inaccurate cliche. We are so spoiled we don't even notice how basically well-run this country is. Or, has been.

But we still have electricity 24 hours a day? Still trust our tap water not to give us cholera and typhus? Still assume that we will get home alive every day? That there will be roads going where we want to go?

The government does NOT "screw up everything."

Coming here to deliver talking points from the RNC and its corporate masters is just so...lapdogish.

[bobbolink]

22. Right! And, I'm sure the OP is ever so concerned about all of us who have lost MEdicaid!

The "liberal" let-'em-eat-cake party!

Ever so concerned about .... well, THEMSELVES.

:puke:

Yet, we're supposed to think that the Republicans are our only problem.

:puke:

Oh, joy! Oh, joy!

[bobbolink]

21. It's this kind of "liberal" thinking that is causing us to not have health care for all.

This is where I get so SICK of blaming it all on the Republicans.

It's all of you who are sooooooo afraid of losing all your goodies that is causing the bottleneck.

Inane? You want inane???? Try this.... having children and young mothers die of leukemia because they can't raise the money on their own for bone marrow transplants, while "liberals" are sitting in luxury room with flat screen TVs, DVDs and refrigerators--and goddess knows what else.

I don't like the use of this particular emoticon, but this time this is the only one that fits: :puke:

[BoneDaddy]

46. Liberal shame

wow...aint much different than the Catholic bullshit I grew up with.

[TheFarseer]

2. ask yourself if public utilities is better

or are private utilities? Public utilities are quite a bit cheaper and better quality. Now I'm not saying this means Universal Healthcare will necessarily be better just because of that, but the government does not screw up everything. Only Republican presidents screw up everything, or at least that's how it's been with the last 3.

[nosmokes]

3. You can wait a helluva long time for a specialist here in the States too.

And it costs a whole lot more. And of course the gov't is gonna fuck things up when the people that are in charge of gov't want to destroy it and replace it w/ a privatised for profit system that will serve those that can pay and leave those that can't at the mercy of the charitable feelings of the wealthy. look at the Single payer health care systems at the rest of Europe and Canada, Australia and New Zealand.It's the only thing that makes sense.

[daninthemoon]

4. Don't forget, "the government screws up everything " because

the rethugs runnin it BELIEVE, and WANT the government to screw everything up. They want to p Back to health care, I have to wait weeks to see most specialists now.

[iamjoy]

5. But That's My Point

the quality of your care would be dependent upon whether or not Republicans or Democrats were in charge. Republicans would sabotage a single payer system.

[nightrider767]

6. Wait For Now

We still have no idea of how this system would work in this country. So comparisons to Canada or England aren't much of a help. They're gonna have to put something on paper for us to look at before anyone can judge. I'm sure it can come in many different forms....

[bobbolink]

27. How many people die for lack of health care while you "WAIT"????

Thanks for your "liberal" compassion....

[nightrider767]

41. It's not While I wait, it's while we wait

We're all stuck with this situation. They should have had this done ten years ago under Clinton. But the rich assholes of this country wanted to maintain their profit center instead of saving people. It's disgusting, even to this day we got people spreading fear and lies about a program that could make life better for so many people while at the same time we're dropping bombs on other countries.

If you can think of a way to speed things up, let me know. But make no mistake about it, it's going to be a war.

[Cleita]

26. I get Medicare and Social Security and they don't screw

up at all. The big problem is the Republicans are trying to steal the money away for privatized programs like Secure Horizons, which are diverting Medicare money to these profit hogs. Now they want to do the same to Social Security. They tried it in England and now the British find that they have a bunch of poor, starving pensioners on their hands whose retirement savings have been practically wiped out with privatization. So why do we want to repeat all their mistakes?

[dmallind]

7. I've lived under both systems

It's true the NHS is not perfect - nothing so sweeping and complex ever could be. It's true there are waits. However the waits are based on prioritization. If you are waiting for a hip replacement it is because people less mobile or facing more hardship need one first. If you need an immediate procedure to save your life, you'll get one immediately assuming the resources actually exist where you are being treated (this is perhaps the only real drawback to efficiently delivered care - as not every hospital has every multi-million dollar piece of equipment). For the services that the vast majority need most of the time - basic care and ER - waits are either same or slightly less in the UK. Frankly ER waits are too long EVERYWHERE IMO but it is not a particular profitable or predictable part of healthcare. For non lifesaving and definitely for non-necessary procedures on the NHS yes you'll wait longer.

The plus side though is much much more important. Everyone gets care, based on need. Everyone has access to low cost prescriptions. Everyone can make family and work decisions without agonizing over their coverage, and yes of course anyone with money can get fancier and faster treatment - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in a capitalist economy. If that comes at the price of me having to wait a couple more months on crutches or in a chair for a hip replacement when I'm 75, then sign me up for one of those.

[GreenPartyVoter]

60. Thanks for this post. It really is helpful. :^)

[MGKrebs]

8. Britain's system is evidently flawed.

France, Spain, and Italy are rated by the WHO with much better systems. Those are the models we should be looking at.

[Warpy]

9. First, have you tried to see a specialist lately?

It took me three months to get an appointment with a rheumatologist the last time I had an HMO, and I had a well documented history. That was 20 years ago and things have deteriorated since then. Waits to see specialists in this country are long and getting longer.

Second, what is the purpose of a hospital? Most people who are in the hospital keep the TV on for noise while they sleep between medications and treatments. The families are the ones impressed by the DVD players, cable, and other accoutrements. It would make more sense for the patients to decrease the nurse:patient ratios since the best predictor of a positive outcome is a trained nurse at the bedside, not a DVD player in the room. For profit health care knows DVD players are cheaper and budget for the occasional lawsuit.

Third, what sort of job is the health insurance industry doing? They are in business to make money, and they make money by denying coverage, denying payment, and denying care. Doctors are rewarded for a lower number of "medical losses," translated as the cost of giving care, that they generate. Drugs are being limited, and one size fits all prescription guidelines are denying patients adequate medication. The system is a mess, thanks to the profit driven insurance industry and its aim of reducing care, not delivering it.

Fourth, you are correct about the adverse effect the health care mess is having on business. Some auto plants have nipped across the border to Canada to escape the health insurance burden, a burden made heavier by the massive administrative costs engendered by competing for profit systems.

You did miss the burden on the American public. Those with insurance are finding more and more of the burden of supporting these companies shifted onto their shoulders by deductions to cover premiums and copays in the plans, themselves. I know two people who have gone bankrupt just from copays. Those with the misfortune to get seriously ill on these plans have found themselves with a stack of bills from denied claims for anything that did not fit a computer model of that illness, deferred care, and even retroactively canceled policies.

To continue the system we have now is simply unthinkable. It is costly, inefficient and monstrously cruel. We need a single payer system that focuses on the delivery of CARE, not a patchwork system that focuses on containing COSTS.

We're just not likely to get it from the front runners in either party.

[daninthemoon]

16. Well said.

[aquart]

12. How nice to read a Republican pamphlet on DU.

I take you haven't bothered to see Sicko, yet?

[iamjoy]

13. I Have Seen Sicko

and I'm not a Republican.

I should have been more clear in my original post. I am conflicted between a single payer system and a universal coverage system that works with existing insurance companies. Of course better regulation would be needed to eliminate some of the outrages Michael Moore detailed.

And no one has really addressed my concern with single payer that Republicans would destroy it the first chance they got by underfunding it. They would play a shell game with it like they have with Medicare D.

[shraby]

20. Under the current system which absolutely

is abominable, my niece's husband had luekemia and needed a bone marrow transplant. The insurance co. was refusing to pay for it citing "experimental treatment". Now bone marrow transplants are absolutely NOT experimental..they've been around for a long time. My niece had to go on radio, contact her representatives in congress, write letters to the editor until finally after it was too late, the insurance co. said okay. Her husband died a couple of years later.
This country needs a national health care program fashioned on Medicaid but without income means testing. The only requirement to the program should be the status of one's health. Health care should NEVER depend on ability to pay or ability to have insurance. It is a right that every person should enjoy period, end of sentence.

[bobbolink]

37. You say you saw Sicko??? Yet, you still think it's ok for the number one cause of HOMELESSNESS to

be our lack of Universal single-payer Health Care?????

Flabberghasting.

This is "LIBERAL" thinking???

Oh, and you really haven't replied to any of the other responses, have you?

Don't like what you're hearing?

Let us know when you're ready to actually be a liberal, and start thinking about the welfare of others.

[iamjoy]

49. I Will Reply

To rational, different counter arguments and not insults or accusations but address my concern: most specifically - the Republicans would screw up the program like they are trying to screw up social security.

[mbee]

14. In my view the first thing that needs to happen is health

insurance should be removed from employer's hands. Since they pay anywhere from 50-80 percent of the premiums it is impossible for the users, namely employees, to have any say so whatsoever in what kind of coverage they receive. All health insurance should be handled by us the consumers just as car and homeowners insurance is. Employers are becoming unable to handle the situation right now and they are facing charging large premiums for the dependents, large co-pays, large deductibles and, in the end, many more people are going to join the ranks of uninsured or have to be responsible for so much of the cost they could go bankrupt if a serious illness comes along. As it stands right now we do not have insurance for health-care, but rather we have insurance for lack of health care. In other words, when we need the health care the insurance company and employer want to get rid of us. I agree that Americans should adopt more healthy living standards (food, exercise, etc), but we should not be threatened when we need to use our health care. That is why we need a single payer, non-profit system. We are already paying for the health-care system three times over what Canada and other places pay. Employers should raise the salaries by what they are paying in health premiums and we should put the money into creating a good system. That's my two cents worth.

[daninthemoon]

17. Excellent idea. I just wish there was some practical way to remove

the insurance cos altogether. Somehow, they definitely need to be reshaped. Pharmaceuticals, too.

[supernova]

18. My take

The UK system has its problems to be sure. And most of them derive from chronic underfunding which we all know conservatives of various stripes are exceedingly good at. Here's the thing.

- I'm a fan of Sean Bean. What's that got to do with anything? Well, a few weeks ago he was in his hometown to kick off a fund drive for the local hospital. A young man who was being treated there for leukemia thought it would be nice to update the rooms on his ward to have, among other things, internet access, just so your stay would be a bit more pleasant and homey, and less antiseptic looking. These types of things are important if you have to be there for a while.

- Have you seen the movie Calendar Girls? It's about a group of women who want to raise money, again for the hospital, to make the patient families' waiting room more comfortable. It became a movie because they succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations.

It's right and just for the government to provide the basic structure and equipment and let the local communities dress it up with niceties and luxuries any way they want. This seems a fair compromise to me. It's a hell of a lot better than the boutique hospitals/hotels that are springing up here. What's the point of that if your ins. co will simply turn around and deny the claim, anywhere from 50% to 100% of it? And don't get me started on people without insurance. Do you honestly think they will get through the front door of such a place, instead of being fobbed off on the county hospital down the street? Those boutique hospitals are chasing an ever smaller, ever wealthier demographic. They are affluenting themselves right out of relevance. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But 20 years from now? 100 years? And they are so busy pursuing the bottom line, I challenge the idea they are doing useful research. R&D is most of the time a loss leader. You have to fail many many times to get one success, something business shy away from. It's simply not profitable.

And ugh. I cringe at the very thought of calling human beings as patients "consumers." They are "Patients." "Consumers" are commodities, the access to which is to be bought and sold. It is the language of marketing, public relations. It's a vile word when talking about absolute necessity of human health. Anybody using corporate america business speak when talking about health care sends up huge red storm flags to me. And I know whereof I speak. I've spent my professional career churning out such gobbledygook. And been very well paid for it. Business speak is all about divide and conquer. The focus for the health care debate, really needs to remain on the human and humane plain, our common humanity. Do not let the repubs control the language we use.

In order for universal health care (not universal "insurance") to work in this country, we will have to make it part of the "third rail" that includes social security. I.e., you talk about cutting it or gutting it or in any way minimizing its importance, you lose your seat in office. We need decide that as a people.

[iamjoy]

47. Thank You

Thank you for a reasoned response that addresses my concerns without accusing me of lacking compassion or sense.

I like that you acknowledge the importance of the "luxuries" but point out that the government should only fund necessities and the community should pick up the extras. Those extras do help recovery, but they are contributing to the problem.

Just a note: the extras are not all boutique hospitals for the weatlhy. It's often for the insured middle class.

[NMMNG]

23. You're right. Private insurance is so much better.

It's great when claims get automatically denied, forcing people to fight to get them covered--if they indeed can. It's great when necessary tests and procedures are disallowed over technicalities. It's great when they tell you they won't cover the medication your doctor prescribed, or they're rationing it--even though what they're going to cover isn't sufficient for your needs. It's great when premiums and co-pays go up basically every single year. It's great when countless loopholes are created by insurance companies so they can get out of paying (but they never have a problem collecting your premiums). All so the CEO can get his millions, if not billions, a year.

[Cleita]

28. Or my nightmare, getting emergency care for my husband, out

in the wilderness. It involved getting a fellow camper to find a ranger to get the local firemen to get a helicopter to airlift him to the nearest city. Oh, Secure Horizons, his Medicare HMO that we made the mistake of having at the time, refused to pay for the claim because I didn't call first to get an approval to go to the ER. He would have died if I did that because his blood pressure was through the ceiling.

[LWolf]

29. I have great insurance!

Everybody says so. My dentist said so, this summer, while I was forking over $500, my copay for an exam and a tooth cleaning.

My optometrist said so, as I forked over another $200 for the new pair of glasses I've needed for a few years; my copay.

My gp and naturopath said so, as I forked over another $400 for blood tests not covered, another $65 for a blood tester not covered, about $600 a month for some medical food and supplements not covered, and now another $125 a month for some medicines not covered. Plus another $25 a month in copays for visits to monitor my progress.

No wonder I ran out of money for basics long before the first check of the new school year came in.

I ran out of cash for the great deals I get on the pap smear, the mammogram, and the dermatologist looking at those morphing freckles. I ran out of cash for the 3rd year in a row; I guess these things can wait one more year, right?

Even those of us with great private insurance find ourselves on waiting lists; I put some needed maintenance and care on a waiting list for funding all the copays. I'm already paying out a chunk every month for the insurance itself, just for the privilege to pay more copays.

[NMMNG]

32. You're so lucky!

I can see why you wouldn't be in favor of National Health Care. :sarcasm:

[LWolf]

34. You can, can't you?

EVERYONE should be so lucky. :sarcasm:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. That sure sounds familiar: high premiums, high deductibles, high co-pays

and I'm told that I'm "lucky" because Minnesota is a "good" state for health insurance.

If I'm in my situation, living in a "good" state, I'd sure hate to see what it's like for people in "bad" states.

[LWolf]

48. That's what I think, too. If this is the "good" insurance,

if this is "lucky," what is "bad" insurance, and what does health care cost those who aren't so "lucky?"

[WilyWondr]

24. What do you have now?

Test your current private insurance out. First, you will need to determine which specialist is part of your plan. Next, you will need to get a referral from your general practitioner in order to have the specialist covered by your insurance. This will require an appointment with your general practitioner in order to obtain the referral. Then call the specialist to see when you will be able to get in. And remember that if you do not cross your T's and dot your I's they will reject your claim, so you cannot take any shortcuts or it will cost you. The insurance companies want their profits and every claim they approve reduces that profit.

I have personally had to wait months to see a dermatologist. Out of the dermatologists on my insurance plan only a couple were seeing new patients and out of those few the soonest I could get in was 2 months. So when I hear the horror stories about Europe or Canada having waiting times it does not surprise me, we have waiting times here too.

The whole private insurance industry is wasteful and innefficient and it enables the medical/pharmaceutical industries to be wasteful and innefficient too. I am convinced the only reason people still think our medical system is SO great is because they do not use it. I have a chronic disease and am forced to deal with this industry to live and IMO they suck BIG time. The insurance companies are the enablers.
Do you think hospitals would be able to charge $20 for an aspirin if people were paying the bill and not insurance companies?

[Cleita]

25. Boy did you get all your right wing health care points together

into one post. Do you believe everthing that they tell you? A Canadian friend of mine said her brother couldn't get hip surgery for six months because the surgeons were prevented from doing more than two surgeries a week. It turned out to be a crock of baloney. Yes, there is sometimes a long wait for elective surgery but that's because everyone is in line for it that needs it, not just those privileged enough to get it. I have had to wait six months here for elective surgery and then I had to pay for it out of pocket because I hadn't met the deductible on my insurance. So why is that better for the patients? It's great for the insurance company because it's $$$$ for them.

Go to this website and read what they have to say. All your BS points written by the health care lobbyists in Washington will go pfffffffft.

http://www.pnhp.org

On edit: btw, ask yourself if NHC is so terrible in other countries, why do people kick and scream when any conservative government tries to take it away from them? It's not like the rich can't fly somewhere else, like Switzerland to get medical if they don't like what they have at home? So why would we give into these views just to keep the rich happy? All they are worried about is how this affects their stock portfolios at your expense.

[Grey]

30. Apples, Oranges and Red Herrings

First of all, Canada is a Single Payer System (SPS) England is Socialized Medicine. Our hospitals, in Canada, are built by the government and run on a not-for-profit footing. We go to the Doctor of choice and they bill the government for services rendered. If a group of Doctors want to build and run their own business, Fine. They can set up any sort of 'practice' they want and bill the government. The government, on the other had has a list of things they will fund, Some they won't. But, the fee arraignment is set and every doctor is paid according to a pre-set fee schedule. You can buy supplemental insurance for whatever extras you think you need, travel and lodging etc. I don't know of any one that has bothered. My point is - all doctors offices are a privately run businesses. Health Clinics are run by the Government, They hire staff to run the clinics and are paid by the government. It can be confusing when a doctors office will call it's self a 'clinic'.

Wait times are the Red Herring here. There is no wait time if it is a life threatening situation. I have never heard of any one waiting without cause, it's usually some complication they just 'forgot' to mention. I have seen some old people leave off having a hip replacement for years and then when the finally get up the nerve to have it done whine that they have to wait months for the operation. Well, maybe, if they hadn't waited till the last possible minute to put their name on the list it would have been done in a timely manner.

My husband has had a half dozen emergency operations over the past 10 years and his longest wait time was 3 hours. Now if you want plastic surgery- expect to wait for a bed.

Could someone, PLEASE, define the terms of the debate, It's sad to watch when you don't even know what you are arguing about.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Thank you! n/t

[iamjoy]

50. My Friend's Aunt

Was told it would be a three month wait to see an oncologist under Britian's NHS.

So see, it was not an "elective" surgery. She had cancer and was told to wait. She mentioned she had supplmental or additional insurance and was told she could see one next week.

[rasputin1952]

31. The Universal Health Care for Americans is really not as

complex as it is made out to be.

If you have insurance, and you need an operation that costs say, $30,000, others in the pool are paying for your health care. What the anti-UHC people fail to realize is that not only are others already paying for their health care, they also can easily be denied a lifesaving operation or procedure if the insurance company decides, for any # of reasons, that said procedure is not cost effective or out of the contract. Insurance "bureaucrats" make decisions every day that kill and maim people who thin they are covered but aren't.

The basic differences between UHC and private, is that the pool would be much larger, (the entire population), and care would/could not be refused. The only exception would be elective "ego" procedures like breast/penis implants, face-lifts etc, for which people could either get private insurance or pay out of pocket.

As for the comparisons to other nation's UHC, take the best from each one, incorporate and extrapolate them into better options and voila, a pretty darn good health care system where people are not dying because they cannot get the procedures, meds or preventative care that would save them.

[slipslidingaway]

35. England allows private insurance companies to compete with

the National HC system (as would the top three candidates)

The Canadian system does not allow private companies to compete (sell insurance) with services covered under the government system, the Conyers/Kucinich system HR 676, would model the Canadian system in that respect.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1830393

There are some short and long videos at the above link as well.

Now that all the health care plans are on the table here are a few videos that describe HR 676, Conyers/Kucinich plan with 77 cosponsors, and how Kucinich would use his platform to advance the legislation. He estimates that this would take roughly three years to implement.

All the other plans leave the wealthiest and healthiest people in our nation with the option of private insurance, those who have the most needs and who will be the most expensive to care for will be insured by the government.

Does that sound like a good plan for the government or for the private insurance companies?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1869822

"The group created by Congress to listen to Americans’ ideas for improving the health system has ignored their overwhelming advice to create a national health insurance program. Although a national health program was by far the most favored option at 86 percent (25 of 29) of the meetings of the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group (CHCWG), the group’s recommendations avoid the clear public preference for government-guaranteed health coverage.

When given a choice of ten reform options at public hearings held by the CHCWG, participants clearly favored a national health program by a margin of at least 3 to 1. At meetings where participants were asked to rank the 10 options, national health insurance was ranked first 16 of 19 times...

Most supporters of a national health program favor a single-payer system, which retain the private delivery of health care by physicians and hospitals, but organizes payment under a single public agency. A 2003 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a single-payer national health insurance program would save enough on administrative costs — more than $300 billion per year — to cover all of the uninsured and provide full benefits for everyone else.


Here are a few posts about the Canadian system

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1850139

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3498793&mesg_id=3499796

[Vinca]

36. Have I been to a hospital lately?????????????

No, I have not. Why? Because I have no insurance. Would you really mind waiting a couple of weeks for an elective procedure if it meant the rest of us wouldn't be left out in the cold? By the way, in the past, when I've had insurance, I've waited 6 months for a routine mammogram and 3 months for a colonoscopy - AFTER exhibiting symptoms associated with colon cancer and having a strong family history of colon cancer. Sorry to sound cranky, but I'm extremely frustrated. Oh, and that Republican line about the government managing things - how's that post office working for you? Social security? Medicare? Single payer, universal healthcare is essentially a payment system, just as insurance companies are a payment system - only insurance companies are more expensive and more complicated. It is not "socialized" medicine - the government wouldn't own the hospitals or hire the doctors. Yes, part of the reason the auto industry and other businesses are bailing on this country is the cost of healthcare for their employees. Don't buy the right wing talking points for a nanosecond.

[iamjoy]

51. I Don't Know That It Would Be Better

How often do British women get mammograms under NHS? How often will the system pay for a colonoscopy?

How is Medicare working? Well, Medicare D may cost some people more money. The government offered this "great" program to cover prescription drug costs. A number of companies then dropped their Rx coverage for retirees - forcing them into Med D with its wonderful donut hole.

And we do pay user fees for the Post Office - would we have co-pays under a government run healthcare system?

And, Republicans want to take away Social Security. They raid the trust fund, claim it is in crisis and talk about privitizing it. I have no faith it will be there for me in 30 or so years.

[Vinca]

55. You are either a wealthy person and have no worries or are headed

for a rude awakening when your own health insurance disappears or fails you. It's quite common to find people defending their insurance companies until their family is faced with a major illness and find out the beloved insurer will only cover 80% of the bill. 20% of a multi hundred thousand dollar bill is enough to send most average people out of their homes and into the bankruptcy court. I agree with you that Medicare Part D is a fiasco, but look who wrote the bill for the Republican party that passed it: Big Pharma. Greed strikes again. I don't know about the British women you're speaking of, but one thing is certain. They will get treatment sooner than an uninsured American. As for the post office, I think they do a remarkable job and I use them daily as an ebay seller. Of course there might be co-pays. Nothing is free. I don't understand why people don't understand that if we had universal, single payer healthcare, at the end of the day you would end up with more money in your pocket. For me, personally, the last quote for health insurance (a couple of years ago) was $12,000 with a $5,000 deductible, 80% coverage and no preventive or outpatient procedures covered. Assuming I didn't use the policy (and, incidently, although insured until 3 years ago, I hadn't had a claim of any kind in 30 years), I would be out $12,000. There is no way my taxes would increase by $12,000 to pay for universal healthcare. Because the money grubbing insurance company profit would be excised, I might be looking at a $3,000 increase. Nothing is free, so get that notion out of your head. If your employer is paying for your insurance you only feel that it's free, but that's the reason many small businesses can't offer it and why larger businesses are on the skids or moving out of the country. There's a reason there are American auto industry plants in Canada. The future of our entire nation is at stake here, not just my life or the lives of dozens of my self-employed friends. Now is the time for the "we" mentality, not the "me" mentality.

[iamjoy]

56. I'm Middle Class - And I've Been Sick

and my insurance company worked quite well for me (for the most part). While there were some blips, for the most part I was pleased with the quality of care and service I received. Hey, one time I had to wait past my appointment time for an MRI and the hospital gave my husband and me vouchers for the cafeteria to get lunch while we waited. :wow:

and in other posts I've also clarified further from my original post. I should have indicated I was comparing a single payer system vs. a universal system that works with existing insurance companies.

I just didn't think it was necessary on DU to indicate that I believed in universal healthcare. I took it as a given that we all agree everyone deserves it, but have different ideas of how to attain that goal.

[Vinca]

57. When I had my last colonoscopy (paid for out of pocket),

the gastroenterologist brought me a giant, blueberry muffin in the recovery room. I think he was just being kind, not trying to convince me to work against the insurance companies. I really don't have a problem with allowing people to opt out and keep their own insurance policies if that's what they really want, but the government should not be subsidizing the megaprofits of those companies. Citizens who opt out of universal, single payer, government-sponsored healthcare should be on their own. I'm happy your insurance company works so well, but imagine you lost your wonderful coverage because of job loss or lack of employer funding. Where would you be? Most likely in line behind tens of millions of us because private insurance is so expensive. The insurance companies don't deserve our business because, in the end, they're concerned about their investors and CEO salaries, not a sick kid or old lady. The more care they can deny, the more money they make. Actually, in a way you can't fault them. It's their fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders. Making money is their mission, not the healthcare of Americans.

[iamjoy]

59. Yeah, I Worry About That

I have the savings - I could quit my job and do something else for six months - such as volunteer for a political campaign. However, I cannot be without health insurance, especially since I have a history. And COBRA would drain my savings too rapidly.

So, I acknowledge that problem. And, while there is always basic human kindness such as youir doctor showed I also believe in many cases competition helps promote improvement. The Post Office is a great example of this. In other cases, competition turns an industry into a cluster f*#@ - such as with the airlines.

[freestyle]

38. We have single payer and government health care now.

They are called Medicare and the VA. Medicare has far lower administrative costs than any private insurance. The main stumbling block teh VA has is systematic underfunding. The facts are that the U.S. spends more money per person on health care, still leaves out 15% of the population, and has similar or worse outcomes than the rest of the industrialized world. The only reason we don't have universal health care is corporate greed.

[bobbolink]

39. Congress has single payer Universal! We could do, if we demanded it!

And John Edwards has vowed not to take ANY of that health care for himself and his family, unless/until ALL have it!

[iamjoy]

52. That's Different

John Edwards has not proposed single payer, he has proposed universal.

There's a difference between universal health care which would work with the existing insurance companies and single payer system which would shut them down.

Which is better?

I am for universal healthcare because I think it is a crime that any child is without health insurance. I think it is wrong that any adult, especially one working full time, is without health insurance.

I don't know if we should scrap our existing system of private employer sponsored healthcare and move to single payer or simply enhance it so every one is covered and the insurance companies aren't playing their BS games.

[bobbolink]

40. OP Missing InAction

You asked for "help", you've received plenty of it, yet you have apparently abandoned your thread.

"Help me out here".

Well, did you want it or not?

[iamjoy]

53. replies posted (eom)

[seasat]

42. Problem with Insurance companies is the administrative cost to the Doctors

I'm not only talking about the higher overhead associated with a corporation versus programs like Medicare (2% versus 18%, if I remember correctly) but the costs of individual doctors dealing with a menagerie of insurance plans. Most doctors have at least one full time person involved in dealing with insurance companies. Each insurance company covers different things at different amounts. They require renegotiation each year. Some insurance companies will do their best to limit timely payments so that they can continue to draw interest on them.

There's also the cost and time of the patient in dealing with insurance companies. Here's my personal experience. I'm fighting our insurance company now. My twin sons were born deaf. They did get cochlear implants on one side and are doing great. We found out that our insurance company, United Health Care, would cover a second implant. A second implant would give them the ability to better discern where sounds were coming from and better sound localization in a noisy situation. We applied for it and they promptly lost our paper work. We applied a second time and didn't hear from them. When we pressed them, they gave us an approval for one son but not the other. We went back and forth with them for several months with numerous promises that we would receive an approval letter for the other twin. They said he was already approved but the doctor wouldn't operate without an official letter. Finally, after going back and forth, they retroactively denied the first twin and claimed that the second twin was never approved. They based this on a change in policy that occurred 6 months after our initial application. We now have lawyers involved and it will probably take a couple of years to get an approval.

The only way I see that private insurance companies should stay involved is with heavy regulation. Our government needs to set regulations that dictate what should be covered and the copays. They'd also fine companies that did not follow these procedures or were late in payments to doctors. That way the insurance company would simply act as a mutual fund for the premiums and a processing center for the paper work. They could compete based on service and ability to get the best return on an investment. However, ideally, I wish they would go the way of buggy whip manufacturers.

I'd wish the candidate I'm supporting and the others would consider something along the lines of Kucinich's plan.

[iamjoy]

54. You Are Right About The Time

I compare my provider bills to the EOB (explanation of benefits) from the insurance company to make sure I am not being overbilled. I have found discrepancies which took months to resolve (writing letter, phone calls, etc)

I also compare the EOBs to my policy to make sure the insurance company handled the claim correctly. I found an error and was very lucky that my employer provided an advocacy department that went to bat for me and got it fixed.

Still, it's very tedious having to look over all of those forms. Thanks for reminding me how much I hated it! That would be an advantage to single payer.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

43. The question of access to specialists is a legitimate one

True, a hip replacement can be put off. But people with cancer are also put on waiting lists. And people may have less usual, but serious problems, which the GPs fail to recognize, fail to refer, fail to treat at all adequately. And then there are cases of provider bias, the bane of bureaucracies. So people may end by obliged to pay their money, but are still deprived of needed care.

Of course to some extent that happens in any system. We need to worry about the best way to minimize the problem.

The question of our politicians spoiling a system--that's a legitimate issue too, I believe. The Medicare drug benefit is an example of a program very badly designed because both parties caved in to lobbyists. I am afraid they are quite capable of still greater abuses of common sense, and the common good, if we let them. If we don't keep very good track of them.

[ihelpu2see]

44. ONE: It does NOT have to be like the VA system TWO: it is as simple as

Medicare Part B for all The Gov. covers medical office visits after a $130 deductible and covers these visits at an 80% rate. You don't allow it to be "Privatized" and you allow Insurance companies to fight over the 20% + $130 deductibles. Believe me, as a doctor we are use to working/fighting with Medicare and all of the coding/regulatory rules are in place, therefor easily and quickly implemented.

[MrMickeysMom]

58. I'd like to challenge the myths that have you waffling, please...

Medicare is probably the most popular and efficient federally run program is history.

It has an overhead (administrative cost) below 10% compared to approx 30% for "For Profit" insurance co's. This difference alone amounts to billions of dollars per year in savings that could be applied directly for PATIENT CARE instead of CORPORATE PROFITS.

In a single payer system, everyone is covered for basic care, including emergency care without wait. Additional elective care could, by necessity, require a waiting period (in other words, to take care of your elective surgeries, you gotta wait- but not by much compared to today's elective surgeries)

Look, the current 47 million Americans without health care coverage, plus those with inadequate insurance coverage, when they do receive care, WE ALL pay for it through higher costs shifting into our insurance premiums. And, the 18,000 people who become patients each year because they've put off treatment until it becomes an emergency because of no health insurance are the biggest loosers.

We need to remove the influence and money of the pharmaceutical companies, too. The govt. should be able to negotiate drug prices and receive significant saving for all beneficiaries, as is done in the other nations with national health care. Currently, the Medicare Part D prevents (by law) these types of negotiations, thereby benefiting "big pharma" instead of those who need medications.

The drumbeating you've been distracted by has been labeled "socialized medicine", or health care rationing. That is BUNK. We already have rationing. Think about it when you hear the next person tell you what they do to survive between monthly decisions about food and medicine.

Candidates like Kucinich and Dodd are trying to talk about a NATIONALIZED health system. It's about damn time we started planning to have one.

:hi: