NY Times Healthcare Articles (part deux)

[TheRealDrDorian]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/business/15scene.html?ex=1173589200&en=ecc8fc1c53c8ff24&ei=5070

Another article for open discussion, which I think is a great overview of the US healthcare dilemma. Unlike the last article (which was more personable and biased), this one touches base with both sides of the issue.

A very interesting point that stuck out to me was:

"Annual health spending in the United States currently exceeds $2 trillion. A single-payer system that did nothing more than reduce administrative expenses to the levels of other countries would save roughly $300 billion annually."

What are your thoughts?

 

[NickRiviera]

What are your thoughts?

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=197

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=147

 

[sirus_virus]

Yeah but Americans don't like to increase taxes. Simple as that.

 

[tdd340]

Yeah but Americans don't like to increase taxes. Simple as that.

Exactly, especially when 85% of people are getting health care paid for by their employer. Most are reluctant to help pay for the other guy.

 

[Dr. Roket]

Exactly, especially when 85% of people are getting health care paid for by their employer. Most are reluctant to help pay for the other guy.

Could you provide some documentation for this fact? If only 15 percent of the population wasn't getting their insurance paid for by their employer, it wouldn't be such a big topic. Sounds like an overstatement to me. Anyways, I like the discussion of insurance companies being compensated in phases as the single payor system takes effect. I think it is an aspect that is often overlooked as consumers don't really care about the companies that have been screwing them over, and insurance companies are too busy lobbying against single payor to discuss compensation should it come to pass.

 

[tdd340]

Could you provide some documentation for this fact? If only 15 percent of the population wasn't getting their insurance paid for by their employer, it wouldn't be such a big topic. Sounds like an overstatement to me. Anyways, I like the discussion of insurance companies being compensated in phases as the single payor system takes effect. I think it is an aspect that is often overlooked as consumers don't really care about the companies that have been screwing them over, and insurance companies are too busy lobbying against single payor to discuss compensation should it come to pass.

Sorry I mispoke somewhat 85% of people in the US are insured. 60% of Americans are covered by their employer and the additional numbers come mainly from Medicare and Medicaid. The overall point I was making is still valid though, that those who have insurance are not inclined generally to help pay for the insurance of others. Here is a link to some information about the topic from HHS. http://aspe.hhs.gov/_/index.cfm