I don't know exactly what all it would entail to have a national healthcare system or if it would even be a good thing for sure. But I will say that something needs to be done. My parents have always had their healthcare through my father's place of employment even after he retired. Now they get something in the mail that states that there will be a slight increase. I am not sure what they consider a slight increase but their insurance went up from about 75.00 per month to 525.00 per month. This is absouluty outragous and from what I can see this is actually still cheaper than getting it on your own. I just feel something needs to be done.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
National Healthcare
- Thread starter tater03
- Start date
Werbung:
I am without insurance right now. I have medications I am supposed to take and have been unable to for two years. Even if I had coverage, some of my medicaitons wouldn't be covered. My kids have health care and that is great for them but, what good am I to them if I am dead?
See that is exactly what I mean. Because of the increase in my parents insurance my Mom can now not afford to take the medicine that she needs to have. It is 250.00 a month with insurance. And though if she didn't have this insurance it would be 750.00 a month, it really don't matter to much now because of the increase in the actual insurance she cannot afford this amount anymore.
mtatum4496
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 227
Personally, I have leaned toward a national health care plan for years. The question is how to structure it so people get the care they need and we end up with a better situation than we have now. Ithink we could learn a lot about what works and what doesn't from England and Canada.
mtatum4496
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 227
I think we could implement a national healthcare plan, but I see it as an uphill battle. From what I understand, it would limit how much money could be made from the medical industry in general, as most plans of this sort put a cap on what can be charged for drugs and various procedures, and I think in some cases, some things like a limited number of office visits to your general practioner per year would be covered by the plan with no out of pocket expense. This would be great for some people, but would cut into the revenue stream for other sectors of our society.
mamab
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 251
I really don't see that national health care is that great in other countries. If it doesn't work there, why would anyone think it would work here? While we don't have insurance at the moment, and I also have meds I'm supposed to take but haven't been able to, I'm still not sure forcing a national plan has its merits. I do know that we have the best doctors in the world, or people from around the world wouldn't come here for risky medical procedures. They obviously don't trust the medical system where they live. I don't know that the caliber of doctors would be as good with a national system.
I would agree that I don't know what the answer is, whether a national healthcare would work or not. Don't the politicians have some kind of great healthcare that they don't pay for? I thought I had read they wanted to do something based on the healthcare and the way it is provided to a politician? Has anyone else heard this?
I am very much opposed to a National Healthcare System. Here is one of the best reasons against it…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/ind...PI-1-20070102-15595000-bc-britain-surgery.xml
Hospitals in Britain have been told to delay procedures for at least 20 weeks because the government isn’t sure they have enough money in the healthcare fund to cover everything.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/ind...PI-1-20070102-15595000-bc-britain-surgery.xml
Hospitals in Britain have been told to delay procedures for at least 20 weeks because the government isn’t sure they have enough money in the healthcare fund to cover everything.
There are probably a bunch of different options here from no national involvement in health care, to nationalized insurance, to full out nationalization of heath care. In any case its a very tough nut to crack. On the fully nationalized side you potentially run into what Andy D mentioned where everyones on a wait list (in the event of the system being under-funded), or conversely you end up spending way more than you need to (if you overfund it). On the fully private side you have people who are effectively on wait lists until they get insurance, which is never in too many of cases.
The fundamental problem as I see it isn't really nationalization or not. Its more how do you get people to make cost conscious health decisions when they aren't spending their own money. Whether your insurer is paying, or the government is paying, you as a patient have no incentive to reduce your spending. Further, people obviously want the best chance at living no matter the cost, so "the more tests and pills the better" is the motto for lots of people. How can you have an effectively running health care system with that attitude about spending?
If you could gear a system that rewarded you (with tax savings or lower premiums or something) based on how "frugal" you were with your health care you could potentially instill the right attitude in people. That way they could at least make their health care decisions in the context of a perceived cost, and start driving the prices downward.
Until people take personal responsibility for the cost of their health care, either system (nationalized, or private) is doomed to be too expensive, and out of reach for some set of people some or all of the time.
The fundamental problem as I see it isn't really nationalization or not. Its more how do you get people to make cost conscious health decisions when they aren't spending their own money. Whether your insurer is paying, or the government is paying, you as a patient have no incentive to reduce your spending. Further, people obviously want the best chance at living no matter the cost, so "the more tests and pills the better" is the motto for lots of people. How can you have an effectively running health care system with that attitude about spending?
If you could gear a system that rewarded you (with tax savings or lower premiums or something) based on how "frugal" you were with your health care you could potentially instill the right attitude in people. That way they could at least make their health care decisions in the context of a perceived cost, and start driving the prices downward.
Until people take personal responsibility for the cost of their health care, either system (nationalized, or private) is doomed to be too expensive, and out of reach for some set of people some or all of the time.
I completely agree with both those points. While I support a national healthcare system, it will inevitably be exploited by somebody. In order to be successful, something must be implemented to encourage people to only use it when needed.
I agree with what you are saying about people overusing the insurance. That and with our track record out government would probably run out of money just on the simple fact alone that they would use the money elsewhere. (Don't get me wrong I don't thing everything in our government is wrong but when it comes to our money and what it is suppoused to be used for there is just not a lot of faith there). I think maybe there could be some way to make the insurance companies lower their premiums or something. Because in the case of my parents who don't use their insurance unless absoulutly necessary (I have to force them to go to a doctor for anything) if you ask me the only reason for an almost 400.00 increase in what they pay for there insurance is a blantent way of saying you are gettng older and we are going to have to pay more out for you so we are going to raise the rates. Hoping that they will be forced to drop it. Just my take on their situation.
Tater,
I think your probably right, there are actuarial folks who figure out what it costs to insure someone of a particular age. If the insurance companies didn't raise rates in accordance with risk-to-insure they'd certianly go bankrupt though, so I'm not sure what the alternative would be.
Ultimately people are in business to make money. If the government declares that you can't make money insuring the elderly, then no one will and you're folks will be worse off than when you started.
What you could do I suppose is declare that all people are equal in the eyes of all US health insurance, then make it mandatory for all US citizens to participate. Insurance companies would then have one rate per plan regardless of your incomming health or age or other risk factors. Thats great for people who are old or have high risk factors, but its not so good for healthy people. If you don't make it mandatory healthy people will opt out of the overly-pricey insurance, leaving the insurance companies with an average rate, but sicker than average people to cover.
I think your probably right, there are actuarial folks who figure out what it costs to insure someone of a particular age. If the insurance companies didn't raise rates in accordance with risk-to-insure they'd certianly go bankrupt though, so I'm not sure what the alternative would be.
Ultimately people are in business to make money. If the government declares that you can't make money insuring the elderly, then no one will and you're folks will be worse off than when you started.
What you could do I suppose is declare that all people are equal in the eyes of all US health insurance, then make it mandatory for all US citizens to participate. Insurance companies would then have one rate per plan regardless of your incomming health or age or other risk factors. Thats great for people who are old or have high risk factors, but its not so good for healthy people. If you don't make it mandatory healthy people will opt out of the overly-pricey insurance, leaving the insurance companies with an average rate, but sicker than average people to cover.
I do understand what you are saying. But I just cannot help but think that they are making plenty of money. Take the hospitals for example they charged me 5.00 for a bandaid. I know that I have switched to the hospitals now but that is quite a markup on a bandaid. I just think that somehow the average person is getting ripped. But than again I am very jaded at the moment about the whole situation.
Werbung:
mtatum4496
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 227
Healthcare in general needs revamping, not just the matter of who can receive it under some type of national coverage. A friend of mine is a registered nurse and he often thinks of leaving the profession. Why? He and others on his floor are so encombered with red tape and reports that they do not get to pay the attention to the patients that they believe they should. And he tells me that the new blood they get fresh out of nursing school know more about how to document stuff in a database than they know about the proper way to start an I.V. It is all very discouraging.
