I have a question about how universal health care would work.

[napi21]

I understand we want to take the profits out of the HC business, and I think that's the right thing. I've heard that some plans would eliminate the insurance companies. Not that I GAS about the insurance companies, but what would happen to the thousands if not millions of people who work there? Not the Execs, but the people who actually do the work. We are fighting to bring the troops home, and I agree with that, but do we really want to face 160,000 troops AND a million + unemployed insurance workers too?

[spag68]

1. Most of the jobs

you refer to, have already been outsourced anyway.

[Warpy]

3. Yes, the billing and coding

and quite a bit of the utilization review. Heck, even medical transcription has been outsourced. If they can find somebody in India willing to eat shit for pay in rupees, they'll take it.

The insurance workers still here will easily be absorbed into the new system.

Well, except for the disembodied voice on the other end of the phone that tells your doctor s/he will not approve your care. 'Scuse me if I don't shed a tear for them.

[napi21]

6. Oooh, I doubt that. Some have been, but I still feel there are at least

1 million or more employed in the HC ins. business here. I've tried to find the stats, but have failed in that effort.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Then why do you feel it? I mean without any statistical evidence? Did you

just pick a number out of the hat?

When the automobile was invented, it threw lot of buggy whip manufactorers out of work. And lots of furriers out of work.

But somehow, we survived.

[Greyhound]

16. I think farrier is the word you're looking for. n/t

[frogcycle]

2. A significant part of the administrative work

will still need to be done. So quite a few of the "paper-pushers" processing claims to get the providers paid for services rendered will still have to be employed. They'll get paid out of tax dollars instead of out of insurance premium dollars.

The effort that is being expended fighting claims, trying to find ways to avoid paying, straining to find preexisting conditions, etc. will go away. That will reduce jobs and cost. And rightfully so.

Meanwhile, employers will be relieved of paying those hefty premiums, will be better able to compete in the world market, and good manufacturing jobs, paying better than those admin jobs, will be created.

Another cost saving not mentioned as frequently as it should be is that by covering the now-uninsured, we will actually save in the long run. What happens now is they don't get preventative care, regular checkups, etc. But they still get sick, orr have accidents. And when they do, they go to emergency rooms. The ER is the most expensive way to deliver medical service. What should be dealt with in a visit to a neighborhood clinic ends up being dealt with in a freaking trauma center! And the patients can't pay, so the hospitals have to eat the cost. That cost goes into the charges for those who do pay - both individuals, and, mostly, insurance companies. So at the end of the day, the 47 million uninsured cost all of us NOW, more than they will when they are covered. And they'll have better, more consistent care.

Take away the obscene profits to the few, take away excessive cost-avoidance administration, and take away excessive-cost service to the poor, and then spread the overall cost over all taxpayers, many of whom are paying hefty premiums today, and take it away from employers, who can then be more competitive, and the economic and social benefits will FAR outweigh any short-term impact of laid-off Aetna and Kaiser workers.

[Selatius]

4. Divert some funding into job training programs, Pell Grants, and higher education in general

If we want to retrain all these workers who would theoretically be unemployed if the US adopted single-payer health care, then the best way to do it is to ease the transition of these workers into other fields by giving them a helping hand.

BTW, the US will likely not adopt such a system. The Republicans have a penchant for filibustering everything that is worthwhile.

[LiberalFighter]

5. When I contacted benefits at my employer for retirement

I was connected with someone from outside the country. It was for medical and pension. Not exactly American workers that would be losing their jobs.

[drm604]

7. I don't think it would be a million,

but it would be thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. But I think that new jobs would be created elsewhere in the economy.

The money saved on health care would be spent elsewhere, creating jobs. Also, employers' fixed cost per employee would go down because they would no longer have to pay for their employees' health care, so they could hire more people and would have less incentive to outsource.

[SoCalDem]

11. and many people who were eager to start their own businesses

would now be able to... Loss of insurance for their families stops many people from doing that..

and people would actually be able to leave a job they hate, so wages migth actually start increasing, once bosses had to start actually paying people real money instead of diverting "raises" into the pockets of greedy insurance companies.

[drm604]

14. Very good points.

People would be more likely to try striking out on their own. That's actually a very Republican thing to do and could be a very good talking point.

[bobbolink]

8. Conyer's bill--HR676, phases in over time. Edwards plan would let people decide,

which would amount to the same thing--phased in over time.

If Congress had a heart as well as a brain, what they would do is mandate those OUTRAGEOUS CEO salaries to be disbursed among those losing their jobs.

This question really hasn't been addressed as well as it should be, because we're using all our energy with the silly "socialism" fears and arguments.

[cynatnite]

9. Do you really think it'd happen like that?

If by some miracle this kind of plan could be put in the works, it'll be phased in over time until everyone is covered, IMO. Adjustments will be made. The system would grow and need those workers who could potentially be laid off.

This country has adjusted to changes like these in the past and I think it could do so again.

[pinto]

12. Valid point, yet Medicare-for-all sure seems the right way to go for the country.

More efficient, more equitable and doable, especially if provider fees are brought up to date (they're currently antiquated).

I assume any universal health care plan would be a phase in, to help buffer some of what you mention, and make it more 'sale able' in the light of the socialized medicine scare meme.

[aquart]

13. Of all the completely insane excuses for denying healthcare to Americans...

All righty, honeykins. The American business, not the cartel, not the international corporate giant, but the basic American business is being strangled by healthcare costs and the lack of options and choices it creates. By removing healthcare from the backs of business, we would free American enterprise to be competitive again, and we could start attracting venture capital and hiring employees because business would be able to be about business again.

[napi21]

15. so you really believe US businesses would give up the extra profit they get

via outsourcing to keep jobs in the US? Comeon, get real.

I want universal HC too, but to think American businesses would forego outsorcing becaue they got off the HC hook is foolish! They would simply view this as MORE MONEY FOR US!