Need help with health care debate

I've been debating back and forth with some people on why there should be national/public heatlh care such as other countries have. What would be your reasonings for having it?

for about 1/10 what it costs the economy in lost productivity due to illness.

The way we treat the poor when they get sick is immoral.

is the uninsured. They end up using ER's for care and the hospitals don't get paid they have to increase costs for the ones who do like your insurance company who in turns raises your premium. Vicious cycle. I also agree with reponse #3. It is basic human dignity.

All the people say is why should I pay for someone else? Pay for it yourself blah blah blah.

Do they have aging parents? Children? (Do they believe in Public Education?)

Are they rich? Do they get insurance through their jobs?

Someday they'll get sick or old or disabled. They may lose a job and be unable to find another one. See how self-sufficient they are then. Meanwhile, if you can figure out how to get them to think like the "compassionate" people they pretend to be, please let me know how you did it.

Good luck.

:hi:

Because we end up paying for them anyway, when they are unable contribute to society, forced to get Medicare and other welfare, then receive expensive procedures for health conditions that would be far cheaper to treat if dealt with earlier. Unless you can afford your own island in international waters, you are going to be paying taxes for things you would rather they didn't go towards, as well as things you do want. Isn't it better to have less of that money go towards things you don't want than things you do?

someone else's money is being used. I've had a year worth over a quarter of a million dollars in treatments.
I sure didn't pay in that much in premiums.

Who do they think pays when the uninsured need medical care? The American taxpayers, that's who.

The small, rural hospital I used to work for absorbed about 1/2 of the uncompensated care they provided each year. The county government helped to fund the rest via property taxes.

The other point is that if healthcare were universal, costs would go down because everything would be streamlined -- one form to file, one policy, everything the same for every person. A doctor wouldn't have to have a staff of 10 just to handle filing the insurance claims.

are all removed from the process.

Indeed todays insured pays less, while at the same time the system covers everyone.

Indeed since the government has the power of taxation, it does not need huge "risk capital" - or a return on that huge risk capital - in order to secure the payment of benefits.

the costs drop by 15% because of ending the 500 different ins companies/HMO's having different forms/procedures for the same health event -

and then drops another 15 to 25% as the risk return and the profits and the cost of lawyers and the Ins Co CEO salaries are removed from the cost of heath care.

The cost of their operations -- the processing of claims, keeping tabs on fees, recruiting physicians to their networks, maintaining legions of lawyers to avoid paying claims and pursuing their overarching role of making their stockholders rich, consumes a substantial portion of the health care dollar. Add in the amount of administrative overhead in medical offices to hold up their end of the transaction process, and the waste is truly insane.

And all of this effort effectively useless, as far as delivering health care goes.

Comparing Canada to U.S.

In Alberta, where I used to live, you do have to wait for 'elective' surgery, (non life-threatening surgery), sometimes for months, while people with major problems are bumped to the front of the line.

Beyond that, comparing Alberta's Provincial Healthcare system to PPO and HMO's down south, I've found no major qualitative difference: except that the American doctors that I have personally had are more apt to immediately prescribe the latest fashionable drug.

and we are ranked 37th in the world. It would be one thing if our "system" worked, but it didn't. It is dysfunctional, competing interests, domination of big money and business, ineffectual government oversight with emphasis on little things that don't help.

We are the only country that views health care as a 'privilege' of wealth. In all other countries, its seen as a right, a "benefit" of membership. Here, you get squat.

I employee a whole department of people to deal with HMO's. The HMOs employ a whole departments of people whose job is to try not to pay for patients who got health care services. More than 50% of the cost in your HMO premium comes from the wages of the risk adjusters and people who figure out ways not to pay health care providers - in addition to the costs of my business staff that I in turn pass back to the HMO and they pass back to you in your premium. If there were no HMO's and the government paid for all health care I would have 8 people who would have no job (and I am in a small 160 bed facility). The national health system in Britain has no equivalent position for the majority of HMO employees - no one needs to spend time deciding who to pay for or when.

I was born in the UK and lived there on and off untill 96. I have more money taken out of my check here in the US (even with those CEO tax cuts - I'm kidding I'm not that kind of CEO) than I did in Britain - my british taxes were a lot higher BUT no FICA, no SS, no HMO payments. The cost is better and the care is better too

I lose money on every single medicaid patient. I almost break even on private payers and HMO's and medicare keeps the doors open with a modest profit. In order to pay the bills, I have to have patients requiring skilled services (therapy, IV drugs, isolation rooms, wound care) Often I have a long term patient on medicaid who needs or could benefit from physical therapy. If there secondary payer is medicare - no issues they get the care and I get reimbursed for my therapists who I have to pay a lot for. If the secondary is a non government agency like an HMO or PPO then I get zip zero for the therapy. We do freebie therapy here (1 unit or 15 minutes of PT is $45 so freebies kill us) when someone needs the therapy they get it. In most facilities this is not the case - I fortunately work for owners that let me take losses to do the right thing. Most hospitals just don't do the care unless there is a payor.

The cost is cheaper the care is better. people win. I would have much less potential for profit in nationalized health care, HMO's would have no more reason to exist, and most of all drug companies with incestous relationships with HMO's would lose.

So why are we the only non third world country without universal health care - follow the money.



incidently after 3 years on here does outing myself as a CEO with an MBA disqualify me from ever posting again?

... are used to help the government of Israel to pay for its citizen's medical insurance. And those dollars that you and your parents paid also financed the Marshall Plan that has been used to finance medical insurance coverage for citizens in just about every European country.

And yet, your tax dollars are not being used to pay for your insurance coverage or that of your fellow citizens.

Where exactly is the fairness where we have to pay for others but cannot get coverage for ourselves???

As it stands now, most health insurance is an employer benefit to the employee. If this benefit were handled by the government, the employers could invest that money elsewhere, including in their profits or by hiring American workers rather than foreign workers who do not required company provided health benefits.

because its covered by the government. Its a huge expense for American companies.

I pay the company portion of healthcare for 184 employees - AND I pay matching FICA on them. my wages are in the 400k per month ballpark and the benefits are an additional 30% (120k per month for the math challenged)