Universal Health Care; The Canadian Experience – Part 3
August 16th, 2010 -- Posted in 662 | No Comments »
By:
Universal Health Care – Why is Health Care So Expensive?
July 31st, 2010 -- Posted in News And Society | No Comments »
Health Care: The History
Health care costs have risen over the last few decades. The bulk of these medical increases have come with advancements in medical technology. Advanced procedures such as neurosurgery, chemotherapy, MRIs, kidney dialysis, etc, cost money to provide. Health care providers pass these costs onto insurance companies, who then pass these costs off to their customers through deductibles and premiums. Of course, this also means that those who need these treatments the most become more expensive to insure. Health insurance companies adjust to this by either raising premiums, or denying coverage altogether. In fact, underwriting (the process of researching prospective clients and deciding how much to charge or whether or not to even cover them) costs money in itself, which again, is passed onto consumers through deductibles and premiums. In other words, providing health insurance only works as a viable business model if those who need it the most are denied their needed coverage. Insurance companies provide potential treatment to those who are likely to need it the least.
Why Medicare Costs Have Increased
This increased cost in health care also affects public health insurance programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Of course, these programs are affected even more. Whereas private health insurance companies calibrate for these costs by passing them onto consumers or denying them coverage, these programs don’t turn people away, or charge them more for preconditions. Medicare insures senior citizens; the most costly to demographic to insure (imagine private health insurance premiums for a 68 year old). So the same profit and loss relationship are driving up private health insurance costs as well as Medicare/Medicaid costs. The burden this places on Medicare doesn’t end here however. Beyond good publicity, private health insurance companies have very little reason to proactivly offer real preventative treatments, since later-in-life illnesses will be covered by another insurer (like Medicare). So it’s Medicare that pays the bill for this lack of preventative later-in-life illness treatment.
Single Payer Health Care
A Single Payer system would effectively fix most of these problems. Being part of a non-profit organization, such a plan would have lower costs all around. Private health insurance companies spend a lot of money, time, and resources underwriting (screening prospective customers), and deciding whether or not to even cover them. They also have other costs, like advertising, paying dividends, and well-paid CEOs and executives. They also invest money into lobbying politicians to discourage them from passing any health care bill which might reduce their profit margins, or running tactically misleading advertisements scare the public into believing horrific things about proposed legislature. These costs are again passed onto customers by way of higher deductible and premiums. Again,these are costs that would come with a public plan.
In addition to all of this, a Single Payer plan would be able to truly spread out costs per unit, to a far greater extent than any single private health insurance can (because of the number of customers it would have). On top of this, there would be real incentive to provide proactive treatments to later-in-life illnesses since the same plan providing these treatments will have to pay the bill for emergency treatments down the road. Other advanced countries have universal health coverage of this nature (or something closer to it, and less privatized than the United States) and are able to ensure their entire populations for less money per person, and health care consumes a far smaller share of their GDP. The people in these countries also have longer lifespans and lower infant mortality rates. In fact, Taiwan provides and even better text case. Several years ago, Taiwan moved from a privatized system to Single Payer (modeled after our Health care system). The result was virtually universal health care coverage for a small percentage of their GDP.
By: Cecil J Cloud
Advantages and Disadvantages Of Universal Health Care
July 26th, 2010 -- Posted in 618 | No Comments »
By:
Universal Health Care
July 20th, 2010 -- Posted in Insurance | No Comments »
Universal Health care is a type of government created system in which every citizen of a country is given access to various forms of medical care, even if they don’t have the resources to pay out of pocket. While the citizens may be able to pay for some services out of pocket, much of the money for Universal Health care will come through taxation or insurance. One of the first countries to institute this form of medical care successfully was Germany under Otto Von Bismarck. However, the very first Universal Healthcare program was created in Great Britain.
Some of the other countries which offer Universal Health care include Australia, France, and Italy. Virtually every industrialized nation currently offers some type of Universal Health care except for the United States. While the definition of Universal Health care largely remains the same, the actual structure of this system will vary from one country to another. The system also varies in terms of how much the government is involved. For example, while some nations allow private doctors to offer their services, other countries do not. In the United Kingdon, doctors can choose to offer services which are outside the government system, but Canada has more restrictions on their medical services.
It is important for readers to realize that Universal Health care is a very wide concept. There are a number of ways in which such a system can be utilized. However, the most basic factor in implementation involves the process of allowing all the citizens within a nation to be given access to health care for an affordable rate. Because implementing such a system requires a large amount of money, many governments tax their citizens in order to fund it. The government also decides how the care must be administered, and who is allowed to receive certain types of care. While many countries use taxation to fund this health care system, the patient may still be required to pay a relatively small fee as well.
Because the Universal Health care system has worked so well in many countries, some citizens and politicians in the United States have proposed the introduction of such a system in their own country. American proponents of Universal Health care are quick to point at the rising cost of commercial insurance as evidence that Universal Healthcare would work. Indeed, the cost of health insurance in the United States has become so high that millions of Americans go without health insurance each year, and should they become sick or injured, the cost of medical care could cause them to go into bankruptcy.
Proponents of Universal Health care argue that the utilization of their system would make it more affordable for all Americans to afford healthcare, and millions would not need to go without medical insurance. While the United States does not currently have a Universal Health care system, the government does provide health care for certain segments of the population, such as veterans, the disabled, senior citizens, or those currently serving in the military.
However, it is important to note that Universal Health care is not without its opponents. Those who oppose Univeral Health care often raise questions as to who would pay the most in taxes for such a system. These people argue that depending on the rate of taxes to be charged, many of the same people who currently can’t afford medical insurance would be hard pressed to pay taxes for a Universal Healthcare system. If the taxes are too high, they argue, then the rich would suffer the largest tax burden, but this is the very same group that is the least likely to need Universal Health care in the first place, since they can afford to pay for private health care.
Many high income American citizens are opposed to Universal Healthcare because they feel they will be forced to pay for something they personally don’t need. In addition to paying for their private medical insurance, they would then have to pay taxes for Universal Health care, a service they would not likely use. Opponents of Universal Health care also argue that there are Constitutional issues that come into play. They argue that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that any powers not granted to the American government in the Constitution must be decided by the states.
Opponents therefore argue that the 10th Amendment demonstrates that only the U.S. states have the power to decide on the issue of Universal Health care, not the Federal government. However, proponents of Universal Health care counter this by saying that the system has worked successfully in other industrialized nations, and if it works there, it can work in the United States as well. One thing that is certain is that there are strong arguments on both sides of the fence, and only time will tell which side is correct. It should also be noted that about 15% of U.S. GDP goes toward health care payments, and this is the highest of any country on the planet.
It should also be noted that over 80% of the U.S. population already has some form of medical care, whether through their job, the government, or a private company. This has led some opponents of Universal Health care to claim that such a system isn’t needed, since only a small percentage of the U.S. population doesn’t have health insurance. However, proponents argue that while 80% of Americans may have some form of coverage, the 20% who don’t is too much. When you consider the fact that 20% of the U.S. population would be around 60 million people who don’t have coverage, it becomes hard to argue with this point.
It should also be noted that the cost of health care in the U.S. is one of the fastest growing phenomenons in recent history. In fact, the rising cost of healthcare is even rising faster than the general rate of inflation. From 2001 through 2007, the rate for family health insurance premiums rose by more than 70%, which is unprecedented. Aside from a government based program for Universal Health care, many cities and states in the U.S. are already in the process of implementing their own Universal Health care plans.
By: Donald Bosso
What If We Had Universal Health Care?
July 19th, 2010 -- Posted in News And Society | No Comments »
With roughly 40 million Americans without health care insurance, and the current political debate of Healthcare Reform, one has to ask themselves what if we had universal health care in this country? While the number seems extremely large, many of those are young healthy Americans who see no need in purchasing insurance. Others who are not insured are denied because of preexisting conditions, financially incapable of purchasing insurance, or are between jobs. With these individuals who are uninsured, many seek medical care in emergency rooms, driving up the health cost for individuals who are insured. Many people believe the U.S. health system is second rate to other countries health operations.
What If We Had Universal Health Care?
Any person seeking basic medical care would be able to access hospitals, doctors, and clinics with a universal health care system. Just to note, I’m not specifying how much would actually be funded by the government, that still remains a political issue. Other wealthy countries have a system of this sort in place, but there are other models that are possible as well. In 2006 the city of San Francisco implemented universal health care. Although many individuals complained of the policy, because they felt it hindered the city by not enticing new businesses in choosing San Francisco as a location. Employers with 20 or more workers have to contribute a dollar per hour to help offset the nearly 200 million price tag. Employers with more than 100 workers are required to pay a $1.60 an hour, and up to $180 monthly maximum per worker. Yes it does seem rather steep, but it does seem like a moral obligation to each other.
The problem that may arise from universal care is the simple supply and demand model. If health care becomes easily obtainable, the demand for it will have a sharp increase resulting in abuse of the system. To exaggerate a little, the country just might become hypochondriacs. Not only that the number of people actually insured is going to decrease as well. People will no longer see a need for obtaining insurance if the government is going to cover basic health needs. When individuals and families begin to take advantage of the universal care the burden on physicians and clinics are going to increase, resulting in long waits and delays. For instance people with health insurance with low or zero deductibles use health services more frequently than those with high deductibles. In contrast universal care is like having a zero deductible resulting in over use of health care facilities. Which would result in a demand for health care workers, which would provide jobs that the economy could use at this moment. My question for you all to ponder is this, how would physicians adjust if universal health care became a reality in the United States?
By: Chadd Ganus
Advantages and Disadvantages Of Universal Health Care
July 2nd, 2010 -- Posted in 606 | No Comments »
By:
United States Population Too Large and Diverse For Universal (Socialistic) Health Care!
June 29th, 2010 -- Posted in Health And Fitness | No Comments »
This may be too brief, but the facts are quite simple. There are not enough doctors, and health care facilities, and resources, to cover everyone in the United States. Each state records all individuals who are licensed to administer and practice medicine. If everyone had totally free health care (we could debate the cost hypothetically all day). There would have to be rationing of care, imagine if every time one felt just a bit sick… they could simply go for totally free care; many would take advantage of this opportunity, and abuse the system. Many of the better doctors (mine for one), are already so over-booked that they no longer take “any” new patients, regardless of what their ability to pay may be.
Many years ago the medical schools actually cut the number of individuals they would enroll, as they predicted too many doctors would over tax the system (too many hands in the pie as it were). The general population trends, and other fiscal factors being involved in the decision making process. Remember, people become doctors for many reasons, but one of them is not to become poor, and work for the good of humanity (at least not for the majority of medical school applicants). The government has never been fiscally responsible in any way; so why should we believe that this “Universal Health Care Program” would be any different? The other countries who have socialized medicine, have all had to move towards rationing, and they don’t have ten-million illegal immigrants either. The waiting times in many Emergency Rooms are already Horrendous in many but the most rural areas, and even in more remote regions problems have been noted.
A good analogy would be: if you were gifted with being able to eat free at McDonald’s (even once a week), it would break the system, and the over-load would be too great for the chain to stay in operation. Even if the government “was paying for your meal!” They would still dictate the amount they would reimburse the chain, and what the meal would be comprised of! You now understand socialized medicine. But “wait” you say “some people aren’t eating at all,” yes they are…they still show-up when their hungry (Need Care), and are still fed (treated for free).
Is this a perfect system…No, but it is working, and…if we try to give free ice cream to everyone, it won’t be much, and it will be melted by the time we get to it!
If someone is intelligent enough to go to medical school, college, or receive vocational instruction, they should be given the opportunity to do so. If we need to learn anything from other countries, it should be how they administer (run) higher education; if a student has the ability to learn, and meets the academic requirements; their education is free. Here in the United States you must pay, and pay dearly. The government uses accreditation to hold institutions to (high) standards…”High Standards” of cost. The President calls everyone to higher education, yet…only a select few can afford it. An illegal alien has a better chance at a free education, than many Americans’ (or) their children. Your paying for their education, and they will see you in their waiting room one day, and send you the bill!
I do not have all of the answers, but the solution may be the adoption of a hybrid-form of education. If a student has the ability to become a doctor; send them to a government medical academy; using the military service academies as a model. After graduation they would have to serve in the United States Medical Corps, and this entity would insure; that no one in this country would ever have to die, stay ill, or go with-out basic medical care.
We have a problem with illegal immigration, that can only be fixed…by holding employers accountable for their practices of hiring illegal aliens!
You also cannot save the economy, by spending money on needless things. We have become a consuming nation. Cap and Trade will cost jobs, as large companies will move rather than pay the high fines; and if they don’t move…They’ll just pass the cost on to us! Why not? we’ve always paid them before!
By: William Sirman Th. D.
Universal Health Care in Massachusetts Stumbles
June 27th, 2010 -- Posted in Insurance | No Comments »
Three years ago Massachusetts passed ground breaking legislation to mandate universal health care for all residents of the state. Now it seems that legislation is breaking the Massachusetts budget.
The newest state budget has eliminated health care coverage for about 30,000 legal immigrants to help close an ever growing budget deficit. In addition to stopping the health care for the legal immigrants, Commonwealth Care also expects to stop automatically enrolling low-income resident who fail to enroll themselves.
Gov. Deval Patrick has asked the legislature to restore $70 million to the program. That amount would only partially restore the benefits now received by legal immigrants.
Robert DeLeo, the Speaker of the State House of Representatives, said Governor Deval had made a compelling case for continuing to provide health care for immigrants, but Mr. DeLeo said, “we only have so much money.” If the legislature does not agree to Governor Deval’s proposal, the cuts will take effect in August.
After passage of the health reform law, Massachusetts had the lowest percentage of uninsured residents at 2.6%. The national average for uninsured residents is around 15%.
Advocates representing immigrant, labor and health advocacy organizations launched a campaign on Wednesday to restore funds for health benefits for 30,000 immigrants covered by the Commonwealth Care program in the 2010 Massachusetts budget
As Washington pours forth health reform proposals, most with murky budgets at best, they might look at Massachusetts and make very sure they really have a way to pay for their proposals.
Giving health insurance and then taking it away is a much harder burden to bear than not having it in the first place. People who came to rely on the program and started treatments are now left with few options.
Lindsey Tucker at Health Care for All an advocacy group in Boston told reporters that restoring $70 million of the estimated $130 million cut would only provide some preventative and emergency care.
Enrollment in Commonwealth Care has risen sharply recently as unemployment has increased. With tax collections down by $2.7 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, lawmakers said they had no choice but to make cuts.
By: Sheila Guilloton
How to Get Universal Health Care
June 27th, 2010 -- Posted in News And Society | No Comments »
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they believe in giving Americans universal health care. I don’t believe them. Anyone who takes the time to understand universal health care should conclude that only a simple single payer system will reform the current outrageous system that benefits the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
The contorted plans from Clinton and Obama are not sufficient reforms. And what John McCain has proposed is sheer nonsense and by itself should cause any conscious American to avoid voting for him.
Fights for health care system reform are centered in Congress, as if legislators will do what they have never done before: achieve true, major and systemic reforms that only serve the public interest, not lobbyists and campaign contributors from business sectors.
Both Clinton and Obama believe that Americans have a moral right to universal health care. If this is correct and if this is what you believe, then achieving universal health care that covers absolutely everyone by making health care affordable to absolutely everyone, as it is in many other nations, requires a different kind of government action. What exactly?
We must expand the Bill of Rights as embodied in the US Constitution to include the right to affordable universal health care. The time has come for the public to conclude that the right to universal health care is as important and necessary as the right to free speech and all the other beloved constitutional rights. Common sense says that health care is a right, not a privilege.
After all, what good are our current constitutional rights if you are ill or dying prematurely because of a lack of good health insurance? Certainly the pursuit of happiness cannot be successful when individuals are suffering from poor health because of inadequate health care.
Why would sensible, caring Americans be against a constitutional right to universal health care? Are there people who would stand up and publicly condemn the right of all Americans to have first rate health care? The only ones I can imagine doing this are those now benefiting financially from the current unjust system, those blocking necessary congressional actions.
What Obama and Clinton should explicitly and loudly advocate is a constitutional amendment that makes universal health care a nonnegotiable right of all Americans.
Why has no member of Congress submitted legislation to get Congress to propose such an amendment for ratification by the states? Clearly, the only rational answer are the many business interests that have corrupted Congress and that benefit from the current system. The Constitution provides an alternative.
Article V provides an option never used in the entire history of the US, because Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and respect state requests. The Article V convention option was put in the Constitution because the Founders and Framers believed that one day Americans would lose trust and confidence in the federal government. With 81 percent of Americans believing the nation is on the wrong track and with so many millions of Americans lacking good health insurance and care, that day has surely arrived. And with abysmally low levels of confidence in Congress and the president, an Article V convention – a temporary fourth branch of the federal government – is clearly the right path to obtaining a universal health care amendment. A convention of state delegates could debate such an amendment and if they agreed to propose it, then the standard ratification by three-quarters of the states would still be necessary.
Yes, this would probably take a few years. But it would be worth it. The prospect of Congress, even with Clinton or Obama as president, achieving universal health care without business-friendly loopholes faster than the amendment approach is not good. The process of pursuing such an amendment, moreover, would help keep pressure on Congress to do the right thing.
By: Joel Hirschhorn
Is This the Health Care System We Aspire To?
June 27th, 2010 -- Posted in News And Society | No Comments »
Today I got a call from my Mom. She and my Dad both live in the city I was born in – Warsaw, Poland. They are both elderly and live off of a government pension akin to the US social security system. The reason she called was to let me know of an excruciating pain she has recently been suffering from, resulting from a progressively degenerative neurological condition in her wrist. As all Poles are, she is entitled to free medical care in government health care facilities under the country’s universal health care insurance program. Trying to get help for her condition, she has visited with several general practitioners covered under her free plan, all of whom admit she needs to see a specialist. The last one finally crafted a referral for her and she is now scheduled to see a neurologist … in three months. Ouch !
Her options now include continuing to suffer the intolerable pain for the next 3 months or pay out of pocket to see a private specialist. The fee for a consultation with a neurologist in private practice exceeds two months of her pension income, but under the circumstances she will have to do just that. The costs of any resulting treatments, if not covered under the government health care plan, may have a devastating financial effect on her and my dad’s retirement lifestyle.
My parents could have opted to purchase private health care insurance coverage which provides access to services in private hospitals and clinics with the most skilled specialists but, because the government program is so dominant and pervasive, the cost of the private alternative is beyond the reach of most middle-class Poles. As a result, it is accessible to only the most affluent (or motivated by dire circumstances and lacking other options) individuals.
Interestingly enough, in many European countries the Polish medical system as a whole is actually touted as one of the better and when compared with the British system in particular, it receives accolades for efficiency and quality of care. What is underscored is the diminishing role of the public plan option and the progressively increasing percentage of services being offered under private insurance. The availability and increasing popularity of the private health care option is viewed with envy. A good summary of these changes in the Polish medical system can be found in an