So, I have individual discussions with most of you about politics here and there, but never do I have the chance to do it in group discussion. I am quite interested in having a discussion on issues like universal health care, particularly because we are all at very different stages in needs of health care.
I'm interested in how you all get your insurance, how you would feel if the government provided that insurance, and to what extent you feel it is the government's responsibility to ensure we have adequate health care.
As for me and my house, I think it is fine to requrie that all people have insurance, even if that insurance comes from the government. I'm not a big tax person and I very much dislike big government, so such a plan should not require any extra spending. What I am failling to understand is how a plan for universal health care would really fix medicare and medicaid. It seems to me as though medicare and medicaid is in basic function insurance for those who can't afford it. Universal health care seems to simply expand the existing program with some changed requirements. That being said, it seems as though that would just cost more mony and accomplish the same things. Am I right? or does somebody have extra light to shed on the situation?
-From Hayley
ReplyDeleteMy brother-in-law is both a surgeon and Canadian. Why is this important? It gives a view from a different perspective: My Brother-in-law has been in post high school education for 12 years. He has over $200,000 in debt. Now, if universal health comes into effect, his salary would become significantly lower, and he would no be able to pay his debts. Secondly, no one would go through that many years of school to be paid so poorly. It would attract less motivated people to the medical profession, forcing the ones you really want working on you into other professions.
Second: My brother-in-law is Canadian. They have Universal Health Care, and he says it is awful. The health care is poor.
So, yes, everybody would get health care, but at what expense? I don't know about others, but I want the smartest guy they can find to be doing my brain surgery...not the dullest knife in the drawer...which can end up being the case with universal health care.
From Greg-
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be a minimum right to health care. There is a provision in hospitals (EMTALA) that says they have to care for people that come in with an emergency no matter their ability to pay. This is tied into Government funds and so is essentially a Government insurance program.
That seems very inefficient and we all know preventative medicine is better. It would saves money to head things off in the first place rather than wait for emergencies. I was listening to NPR and they were saying how most people's primary care physician is the ER. That is wasteful.
Now, I am a supporter of a Government backed minimum health care. I don't think the government has to pay for people's spectacles. I don't think that the Government has to cover cosmetic plastic surgery. I think that people should be able to go into a doctor when they are not feeling well in order to obtain help.
How far should that care go and to whom should it apply, you ask? Well, I like to look to Massachusetts for a good example. Massachusetts has a sort of system that I think could work. Everyone has to have coverage, but if you can not afford a private insurance plan, the Government will provide one for you. It is kind of convoluted, but it involves a lot of requirements for Employer health care plans, as well. I think that this could be workable.
As far as costs, it is going to cost money. Stuff costs money. But I wonder if, but shifting a focus to preventative medicine, you can avoid certain costs. First, EMTALA reimbursement could be reduced significantly because less people would be going to the Emergency room. Second, less people with insurance would be contracting preventable diseases, causing current insurance prices to deflate and making a government backed plan more affordable. Additionally, more people would be able to afford private insurance (which would invariably be more desirable and better all around) thus pushing people toward private insurance and away from the government backed. Third, those on medicaid will be using preventative medicine and will be less likely to need to undergo expensive procedures an lengthy hospital stays because of defensive medicine. Thus, the costs of medicare would decrease and the Government would have more money.
I don't yet know how I feel about Universal Health Care. I would be happier if it were pioneered on a State level rather than Federal. However, I also like the Marxian (is it Marxian) theory that we should be able to sacrifice top notch care for some in order to give some care to others. It doesn't seem fair that only the rich get saved (is it natural eugenics).
Ultimately, I say to you what I say to everyone. I am not an economist. I am not a doctor. I am not a health care provider. I will never know enough to have a really solid, formulated opinion on the subject. So I give you my opinion for what it is worth.
Well, since health care seems to be the popular subject, lets go. I assume everyone is making reference to Obama's proposed health care reforms. Many people think that this proposed regulation is a standard issue universal health care. From what I understand it is different. While it is true, I believe, that he wishes to mandate health insurance, the plan would still allow people use private health insurance companies, maintaining that important competition. People would still choose doctors, also maintaining competition. The difference is that Obama would create a government provided health insurance plan that people who cannot afford or do not wish to use private insurance can opt into. This gives a cheap but effective alternative, thus lightening the burden of requiring health insurance. That's Obama's plan, as I understand it. Implemented exactly as stated above, I think it would work out well. It maintains competition between insurance companies and health care providers, thus encouraging the best care and the best people to be in the field. It would also assist those who cannot afford insurance. I have a feeling, however, that this is not how any plan would go down. The government has as of late developed a bad habit of not quite sticking to what they way. All in all, I agree with the rest, that true universal health care is ineffective. Not only does it discourage competition, but where the government chooses which doctors you go to, the wait for a major surgery or procedure becomes excruciatingly long. Too long in many cases. Also, it is a large burden on the government. Great Britain, one of the prime examples of universal health care, is having to make huge cutbacks due to the increase in costs of health care. Taxes simply are not enough. The government is going into debt to provide health care for its people. Perhaps a hybrid health care system like France, where insurance companies are run by the government but all hospitals and health care providers are private, might be effective.....
ReplyDeleteThe lag time in universal health care comes only when the government starts managing and controlling the doctors. When they cut the supply, but increase the demand. So long as there is adiquate competition in the medical field, lag time shouldn't be affected. I immagine right off the bat there would be quite an increase in demand because everyone could afford health care, but the number of doctors would not increase, thus, puting strain on the system. It would take a few years to correct, but it would correct itself. The problem is, even a temporary strain on the health care system would cause prices to jump, which defeats the purpose of universal health care in the first place.
ReplyDeleteYour comments are helpful in understanding scope, but I also wonder what the future of medicare and medicaid is. Would they disappear?
-Greg said . . .
ReplyDeleteDiscussing Universal Health Care is a whole different thing than discussing what is actually going to happen. Universal Health Care is Medicare and Medicaid, just on a broader scope (it would be "free" to everyone, but the more wealthy would be pumping in more taxes, essentially paying for the program: In essence, it is still free to the poor paid by the rich).
But, as far as having to wait for expensive procedures, it may be that they just won't happen for those who don't opt into a more expensive, private plan. Part of the wonder of market competition is that we get the best machines, surgeons, and procedures. Without that competition, the cutting edge technology and innovation doesn't happen. That is why everyone comes to the US for really expensive, high profile procedures but would never come here for basic care. Universal Health care would give everyone basic coverage, but the access to better and more expensive procedures may not be possible.
I don't think that Market Capitalism and thus innovation would be drastically affected because the Government would never go so far as to say that a person with money can not "buy" a certain procedure. I wonder, though, because countries with Universal Health care have seen a dip in innovation and research. I think that a mixed Government and Private market would give the type of coverage people want and need while maintaining a healthy amount of competition.
Here is my "thoughts"- looking at other countries that have goverment provided healthcare, it stinks. you've heard that in england this last week, they came out and said taht they wouldn't provide specific drugs for breast cancer because it is too expensive. Knowing in the Bean family it's hereditary, that is a death sentence. I know that there are "two" discussions, universal health care and goverment insurance but the reality is that they are one and the same in the long run. Medicaid/medicare is going broke and raising taxes is the only way to fix it (they can't make it smaller) so why make it bigger? Thinking that they are going to offer goverment insurance at a lower cost is silly, just more people will jump on the free band wagon and ruin these companies. Seriously, I don't think the health care system is as BROKE as they make it out to be. I don't want gov. telling me what I can and can't do. It's a small step to family planning, etc.
ReplyDeleteJust my soap box, but it scares me- more then almost anything out there.
Like Greg says, those with $$$ can buy anything, but we don't have money, and with me staying at home with 4 kids, we probably won't ever have that kind of money, and I don't want someone saying your poor so your kid gets the crappy treatment/dr. but someone else gets much better because of money-
Interesting thought, that even if the country did the universal insurance plan it would eventually degrade into a fully-controlled government system. I can see that happenning. I'll have to research to see if there is any historic prescident for that.
ReplyDeleteI am not a constitutional scholar, but where is the constitutional authority giving the Federal Government to issue health insurance and in essence enter into private capital enterprises?
ReplyDeleteGreg Said-
ReplyDeleteI think that it is the spending power. The Government can do pretty much whatever it wants with spending as long as it is not Unconstitutional. It kind of seems akin to Federal Student loans, but with much more going on underneath. I guess it's kind of like offering people Medicare for a low price.
And . . YEAH! DAD IS A BLOGGER! YEAH!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to read the constitution again, it's been a few years. I'll get back to that comment.
ReplyDeleteStarting on page 389 of this health bill it starts talking about a bunch of money that will go into the communities for a oversight and implantation group who will be able to access if you have the right healthy food in your fridge and cupboards. Also each of us will be accessed on how much we excercise and take care of ourselves. If we don't, we will get our coverage cut. That is how Obama will control the costs. Where I was listening, they said that one country that has this sort of thing (England?) has people coming in to check your food and living conditions. If you don't measure up to fedreal standards, stinks for you. Also it will regulate what restrants will have on their menues to make sure they are healthey alternatives. There is lots, lots, more hidden in it. HOw far is Obama going to go telling us what we may or may not do? I feel the medical should stay in the State. The ONLY thing our fedreal government is suspose to do is to insure our protection from other countries. There is a unique balancing act our government takes on and if the scale is balanced, we lean toward tyranny or anarchy. And that scale is tipping quickly, my children! Please become educated and DO something, not just sit and watch our country fold. Please forgive my spelling. MOM
ReplyDeleteMom says,opps! (SCALE NOT BALLANCED)
ReplyDeleteI attempted to research the bill you were talking about, but couldn't find it. I couldn't find news storries, bill text, or any other commentary on it. I would think that if something of this magnitude were out there it would be headline news and we would know about it. I would like to know more about it, so if anyone else finds any information on it, do say so. In researching though, I found the options are narrowing for a health care package. Bipartisan support is increasing as the cost has decreased to a meager 1 trillion dollars and as they are working out the private sector options. This is hopeful becasue it means there will still remain a capitalistic element in the health care industry. In fact, it will remain largely capitalistic. The insurance regulation will not be any more, however. I do not think we need worry about the government taking over the entire health care system. Many on the right wing would have us believe that such a thing will happen, but the American people would never have it, and I don't think our goverment is THAT stupid yet. The plan they are currently considering would be eneacted in about ten years, prolly arround 2020. Perhapse the old people who can't afford health care right now won't even be arround when the reform comes. . . I see the biggest problem in crafting the bill now comes becaus the House and the Senate are drafting two different bills. Even if the House comes up with a great bill, the Senate still has to agree on it. I'm not sure it will happen this legislative session, although they are trying hard for it.
ReplyDeleteHere's the link to the NYT article I was reading. I enjoyed it, perhapse you will too. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009386478_congress26.html
ReplyDeleteHere are some interesting comments from Senetor Mike Crapo,
ReplyDeleteregarding universal health care, access to insurance, and proposed tax increases to fund a government-run health care system. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Providing effective and affordable health care is one of the greatest challenges facing the health profession, insurers, and local, state, and federal governments. I have heard similar concerns from numerous Idahoans and understand the burden that high insurance and medical costs place on working families, and especially on seniors with fixed incomes. Our nation's families should not be forced to forfeit vital necessities in order to afford adequate health care.
Congress continues to review various health care proposals that will shape the health care industry in the future. The goal of these proposals, and the focus of this debate, is to increase affordability and choice, address barriers to accessing insurance, and to stem or even reduce the growing number of uninsured persons. Congress must work to improve not only the access of health care, but also the quality of health care.
In order to address these issues, some lawmakers have advocated the creation of a single-payer healthcare system run by the federal government which would be mandatory for all Americans. I am opposed to such a system as it would certainly lower the quality of care that Americans enjoy. In Canada's single-payer system, for example, patients must wait for months in order to receive certain types of surgery. In addition, such a system would be extremely costly, burdening American taxpayers and the economy with large costs and inevitable, significant tax increases. Without the beneficial effects of competition among insurers, or cost-cutting measures developed by the private sector, a government health care monopoly would likely lead to higher prices. The archaic, confusing and inaccurate formulas and policies used by Medicare to determine physician and hospital reimbursement levels serve as an example of the ramifications of adopting a universal, government-run healthcare system.
The best solution is to expand public-private partnerships that utilize the greater efficiency and existing infrastructure of private insurers to expand quality health care to the uninsured. One promising development in health insurance is the idea of health savings accounts (HSA). HSAs are a new method of paying for medical expenses not covered by insurance or other reimbursements. Authorized in November 2003 as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA), HSAs allow eligible individuals to establish and fund a medical savings account when they have a qualifying high deductible health plan. Deductibles under qualifying HSAs are at least $1,000 for single and $2,000 for family coverage. The new accounts have tax advantages that can be significant such as deductible contributions and tax-exempt account earnings. In addition, account withdrawals used for medical expenses are not taxed. Unused balances may accumulate without limit.
Instead of giving the government more power over health care, individual patients must be given more control, choice, and information to make their health care decisions. When individual patients have these choices, they will reward innovative insurers and providers who reduce costs and improve quality.
Providing quality health care for all citizens must remain a priority for this Congress. Please know that I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to improve our system of health care.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or any other matter of concern to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mike Crapo
United States Senator
I have heard a lot about health savings accounts, but I am still confused about them. Do you elect to have an amount taken out of your paycheck and put it into a savings account for health care? So, instead of paying for insurance, you have a savings account instead? Then, in order to get care, I put out $2000 of my money out of my account before I get coverage? If I get over $2000 in my account, do I just start paying for whatever I can beyond my deductable? How does this compare to purchasing an actual health care plan as far as cost goes? Can poor people afford it, or will their contributions from paychecks be so scant that they will never get coverage?
ReplyDeleteWhew. I guess I should just read about it online. Is there a good site that explains it all? I am interested to know.