Uninsured people issue-- interview question

[senioritaelena]

---

Members do not see this ad.

How do you answer the "How would you fix the problem with the amount of uninsured people in US" question. Or one's along those lines? As a Canadaian i dio not feel that I am well versed in this area. Suggestions??

 

[OncoCaP]

How do you answer the "How would you fix the problem with the amount of uninsured people in US" question. Or one's along those lines? As a Canadaian i dio not feel that I am well versed in this area. Suggestions??

Maybe say that you'll encourage U.S. voters and politicians to adopt the Canadian system or some improved version thereof?

Talk about what you do know. They don't actually expect you to fix the problem. Interviewers just want to make sure you can come up with intelligent responses and explain them.

 

[MeCord3]

How do you answer the "How would you fix the problem with the amount of uninsured people in US" question. Or one's along those lines? As a Canadaian i dio not feel that I am well versed in this area. Suggestions??

As Onco said above, you're not expected to actually solve the problem. What they want to see is some genuine thought and familiarity regarding the issue. You'd do well to do a bit of research on the issue of insurance (as well as other controversial/important issues in healthcare) and think of some possible points of discussion before the interview.

 

[MonkeyNuts!]

Check out the HealthCare Topics subforum.

I would have to say single payer system, eliminate the paper trail and massive administrative costs, increase access through a nationwide army of primary care physicians that can reinstitute a pyramid structure of caregiving. Also need alot of socioeconomic reform; single payer system is not a fix it all solution.

 

[BNSN]

Check out the HealthCare Topics subforum.

I would have to say single payer system, eliminate the paper trail and massive administrative costs, increase access through a nationwide army of primary care physicians that can reinstitute a pyramid structure of caregiving. Also need alot of socioeconomic reform; single payer system is not a fix it all solution.

socialist

 

[OncoCaP]

socialist

You say that like it's a bad thing ...

Actually a single payer system could still have private physician employers/ independent contractors (as opposed to making them gov't employees like the UK).

 

[DrBowtie]

You say that like it's a bad thing ...

Actually a single payer system could still have private physician employers/ independent contractors (as opposed to making them gov't employees like the UK).

It is in America!
Viva La Capitalism!

 

[OncoCaP]

It is in America!
Viva La Capitalism!

Well, pure Capitalism went out of vogue a long time ago (with Unions, anti-trust & monopoly legislation, Medicare, Soc Sec, Welfare, etc. etc.).

I hope we find some way to get rid of private health insurance companies. It's probably not going to happen, but it's my hope anyway. They provide no value that cannot be provided some other way (in fact, they create more problems than they solve for providers and patients).

 

[DrBowtie]

Well, pure Capitalism went out of vogue a long time ago (with Unions, anti-trust & monopoly legislation, Medicare, Soc Sec, Welfare, etc. etc.).

I hope we find some way to get rid of private health insurance companies. It's probably not going to happen, but it's my hope anyway. They provide no value that cannot be provided some other way (in fact, they create more problems than they solve for providers and patients).

I think the millions of people working in the insurance business would beg to differ.

Capitalism breeds efficiency, while a government run system would do the exact opposite.

 

[OncoCaP]

I think the millions of people working in the insurance business would beg to differ.

Capitalism breeds efficiency, while a government run system would do the exact opposite.

Who cares ... criminals probably don't like police either, but we don't check with the local mafia if it would be ok to arrest criminals.

The health insurance industry does one thing: make money for it's executives, employees and stock holders. Any value that they provide (including efficiency) is actually better handled by a single payer system without 4400 or however many insurance companies with all their stupid rules, forms, and BS which they spend our money to enrich themselves and lobby against what people want and deny our claims with. Get rid of them, and they won't be missed. We could hire new companies to process paperwork for the gov't if we want to outsource, but all policy and claim decisions should be handled at the gov't level. We would all be in the same coverage and it would be to everyone's advantage to make it work as well as possible for patients and providers.

 

[wolfram241]

A: "Vote Hillary in 08."

Your interviewer will probably cream his (or her) panties.

 

[DrBowtie]

Who cares ... criminals probably don't like police either, but we don't check with the local mafia if it would be ok to arrest criminals.

The health insurance industry does one thing: make money for it's executives, employees and stock holders. Any value that they provide (including efficiency) is actually better handled by a single payer system without 4400 or however many insurance companies with all their stupid rules, forms, and BS which they spend our money to enrich themselves and lobby against what people want and deny our claims with. Get rid of them, and they won't be missed.

I don't follow. The insurance industry has a lot of lobbying power. They won't get written off with a stroke of a pen.

 

[OncoCaP]

I don't follow. The insurance industry has a lot of lobbying power. They won't get written off with a stroke of a pen.

Yes, true. They do have a lot of power ... as did slave owners during slavery. It took a civil war to get rid of those clowns. Getting rid of insurance companies won't be easy ... they are a parasite that's firmly embedded but stroking them isn't going to make things better. Just because a treatment hurts or has a low chance of success doesn't mean that it isn't necessary.

 

[DrBowtie]

Yes, true. They do have a lot of power ... as did slave owners during slavery. It took a civil war to get rid of those clowns. Getting rid of insurance companies won't be easy ... they are a parasite that's firmly embedded but stroking them isn't going to make things better. Just because a treatment hurts or has a low chance of success doesn't mean that it isn't necessary.

Cash: Legal Tender for debts both public and private.
If you want it, pay for it.

You keep saying to abolish this system, but them the same problems just transfer onto the government who already has enough problems they can't handle.

 

[dutchman]

A single payer system without competing private insurances will be risky business for everyone(patients and healthcare workers). If politicians screw up the budget(and they will) by spending too much on something else like wars etc, they can just go try to balance their mistakes by cutting healthcare expenditure, and no one will have a choice. A single payer system will allow for one single mistake to affect everything, that is why all government programs are mismanaged and collapsing.

 

[OncoCaP]

Cash: Legal Tender for debts both public and private.
If you want it, pay for it.

You keep saying to abolish this system, but them the same problems just transfer onto the government who already has enough problems they can't handle.

Cash seems fine ... payment required upon providing services.

The problem is that liberals don't like that, so there would need to be a gov't program to help the poor. We could just expand Medicare to cover everyone, I suppose (it would require a tax increase no doubt). However, we already spend more on healthcare than any other country (percentage wise, etc.). Even with inefficiency, we should be able to cover everyone very well with what we are paying now as a nation (instead of having 47 million uninsured -- 1 in 3 under 65)

Also, with respect to insurance companies, I could probably go for having them as long as they can't deny any non-fraudulent claims and must accept everyone, regardless of ability to pay (they will change by attracting enough non-poor customers or go away)

 

[DrBowtie]

Cash seems fine ... payment required upon providing services.

The problem is that liberals don't like that, so there would need to be a gov't program to help the poor. We could just expand Medicare to cover everyone, I suppose (it would require a tax increase no doubt). However, we already spend more on healthcare than any other country (percentage wise, etc.). Even with inefficiency, we should be able to cover everyone very well with what we are paying now as a nation (instead of having 47 million uninsured -- 1 in 3 under 65)

Also, with respect to insurance companies, I could probably go for having them as long as they can't deny any non-fraudulent claims and must accept everyone, regardless of ability to pay (they will change by attracting enough non-poor customers or go away)

I think we'd see that dumping 47 million more people into the system without something else changing would crush our current standard of care.

That something else is what we're looking for. It's not going to be a shift to government based healthcare.

The insurance company isn't a company if they have no choices. Why would they accept patients who have no ability to pay? Thats negative cash flows.

 

[dutchman]

Cash seems fine ... payment required upon providing services.

The problem is that liberals don't like that, so there would need to be a gov't program to help the poor. We could just expand Medicare to cover everyone, I suppose (it would require a tax increase no doubt). However, we already spend more on healthcare than any other country (percentage wise, etc.). Even with inefficiency, we should be able to cover everyone with what we are paying now as a nation.

Okay enough already with the comparisons to other countries. Since when did we forget that things are different here. If you are in the business of comparing healthcare expenditure with other countries, make sure you compare it in totality. For example, in the Europe, there is no such thing as defensive medicine(which costs the U.S upwards of 120 billion dollars a year), how does anyone expect us to have the same healthcare expenditure as them. If we are going to clamour for foreign healthcare styles, then we need to be ready to adopt every facet of their technique which we are not committed to doing.

 

[OncoCaP]

I think we'd see that dumping 47 million more people into the system without something else changing would crush our current standard of care. That something else is what we're looking for. It's not going to be a shift to government based healthcare.

Newsflash: Those 47 million are already being 'dumped' into our emergency rooms around the country (many of them are provided care that is now uncompensated by the patient's payment -- they just come to get 'free' care). A cough that could have been treated with $7 of antibiotics and a $80 FM visit two weeks ago is now pneumonia and going to cost our wonderful taxpayers $1500 in hospitalization, IV antibiotics, and whatnot because some uninsured person didn't have reasonable access to primary care. If anything, we'll see a cost decrease and get a pay raise under a single-payer system because we can start treating patients instead of begging for our payments.

The insurance company isn't a company if they have no choices. Why would they accept patients who have no ability to pay? Thats negative cash flows

They could try to find enough paying customers to make it all work out or ... my preference ... go away or be relegated to just doing data processing for the gov't plan. I have zero sympathy for the health insurance companies.

 

[DrBowtie]

Newsflash: Those 47 million are already being 'dumped' into our emergency rooms around the country (many of them are provided care that is now uncompensated by the patient's payment -- they just come to get 'free' care). A cough that could have been treated with $7 of antibiotics and a $80 FM visit two weeks ago is now pneumonia and going to cost our wonderful taxpayers $1500 in hospitalization, IV antibiotics, and whatnot because some uninsured person didn't have reasonable access to primary care. If anything, we'll see a cost decrease and get a pay raise under a single-payer system because we can start treating patients instead of begging for our payments.



They could try to find enough paying customers to make it all work out or ... my preference ... go away or be relegated to just doing data processing for the gov't plan. I have zero sympathy for the health insurance companies.

Please...You think all 47 million are seeking treatment? With a "free" system, people who have no business seeking medical attention are going to be popping in to get checked out weekly.

We're not getting anywhere so this is where we must agree to disagree. Your distaste for health insurance companies make it impossible to discuss options that include them.

 

[Navicular]

Let's just end the health disparities in Africa and China by instituting a Global Health Care Plan... Everyone in the world gets health care for free!

 

[OncoCaP]

Please...You think all 47 million are seeking treatment? With a "free" system, people who have no business seeking medical attention are going to be popping in to get checked out weekly.

We're not getting anywhere so this is where we must agree to disagree. Your distaste for health insurance companies make it impossible to discuss options that include them.

Yes, they are. They are seeking treatment. Now granted, there are people who can get seen next day right now for some treatment while someone with a more serious issue must wait until they can have a fundraiser or whatever. A single payer system would more equitable.

Also, just because they are uninsured doesn't mean they are sick. But yes, if someone is uninsured and sick, they often go to the emergency room (or pay cash). So they are already being treated.

I have little sympathy for insurance providers who treat patients and providers poorly. I'm not sure why you are such a big fan. Wait until you need to get on your knees to get paid -- or until someone you care about is dropped from health insurance because they have an illness -- we'll see how much you like them then. Did you know that health insurance companies deny people coverage based on their height and weight -- that means if your are a body-builder you could be denied coverage because they lump you with the out of shape people ... and, oh yes, they can drop you if you get sick (if you have individual coverage). If you are a baby and say you are 2' 6" and 25 lbs, they consider that overweight and will not cover the baby. We really don't want or need parasites like that.

 

[DrBowtie]

Yes, they are. They are seeking treatment. Now granted, there are people who can get seen next day right now for some treatment while someone with a more serious issue must wait until they can have a fundraiser or whatever. A single payer system would more equitable.

I have little sympathy for insurance providers who treat patients and providers poorly. I'm not sure why you are such a big fan. Wait until you need to get on your knees to get paid -- or until someone you care about is dropped from health insurance because they have an illness -- we'll see how much you like them then. Did you know that health insurance companies deny people coverage based on their height and weight -- that means if your are a body-builder you could be denied coverage because they lump you with the out of shape people ... and, oh yes, they can drop you if you get sick (if you have individual coverage). We really don't want or need parasites like that.

I'm sympathetic because I take them for what they are! They are a company and have every right to charge people money for a service that they provide. If they provide poor service, people will switch! People can control the market.

 

[OncoCaP]

I'm sympathetic because I take them for what they are! They are a company and have every right to charge people money for a service that they provide. If they provide poor service, people will switch! People can control the market.

Well, fine then. Let them do what that they do. Just make that we have a gov't program that provides health coverage that actually works for most or hopefully all Americans. Health insurance companies are providing a valuable service to fewer and fewer Americans (and what value they do provide is easily replaced by something better & less costly)

One more thing: your employer should not be allowed to choose your health insurance options. Do we let our employers choose what schools our kids go to? No. Our employers should only pay us for our work and stay out of our personal business. They have no business choosing what health insurance we can or cannot have. They should not be allowed to make decisions like that. Most employers probably don't want to be in the health insurance transaction business anyway.

 

[OncoCaP]

Let's just end the health disparities in Africa and China by instituting a Global Health Care Plan... Everyone in the world gets health care for free!

We're already paying enough to treat every man woman and child in the U.S. Let's at least get our money's worth. Why should we get ripped off by insurance companies?

 

[Mr. Tee]

socialist

That mindset is exactly the problem. Government helping us = bad!!!

 

[OncoCaP]

That mindset is exactly the problem. Government helping us = bad!!!

Not as bad as health insurance companies 'helping' us.... At least we can elect our gov't leaders. We have no say whatsoever in health insurance companies.

 

[Mr. Tee]

Not as bad as health insurance companies 'helping' us.... At least we can elect our gov't leaders. We have no say whatsoever in health insurance companies.

Whatever, I'm going to get my mass-media cronies to perpetuate the fear. Oh wait, it's already happening.

 

[novawildcat]

Ahhh the question that has no answer. Yup, living without health insurance sucks-- I experienced it for over a year after graduating from college and I even had a job too.

How do we tackle the uninsured problem? Tax payers already pay for people that go to the hospital ER for treatment, even though they can't pay why not ask them for some other form of repayment like through civil service? I bet people would definitely line up in droves to trade in civil service for health care treatment. The government (state and federal) would be able to save millions of dollars on projects that were all volunteer run.

You could also have mandatory tax deductions from paychecks that could be saved up for years for someone and if the time came when they needed to go to the hospital, those tax deductions could be used to pay for treatment. If there were any funds left over after a person retired, those funds could then be simply rolled over to someone's social security or retirement fund.

 

[DrBowtie]

Not as bad as health insurance companies 'helping' us.... At least we can elect our gov't leaders. We have no say whatsoever in health insurance companies.

Again somewhat. You can take your business elsewhere. Vote with your dollars. Convince your employer to switch as well if you're locked in and enough people are disgruntled.

 

[OncoCaP]

Again somewhat. You can take your business elsewhere. Vote with your dollars. Convince your employer to switch as well if you're locked in and enough people are disgruntled.

Not really. Your employer picks your insurer to get the cheapest coverage. Have you ever tried getting individual coverage -- $$$$$$ if you can even qualify.

Step 1: Provide a gov't plan for all Americans. Pay for it with income taxes (progressive). This would provide everyone with at least basic care.

Step 2: Eliminate employer's option to choose health insurance plans. They have no business mucking with our health insurance.

Step 3: Make it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against any applicants for anything or to charge different rates, drop people. It's probably fair to require all people to pay a standard rate.

Without the above, insurance companies will continue to ruin our healthcare system.

 

[DrBowtie]

Not really. Your employer picks your insurer to get the cheapest coverage. Have you ever tried getting individual coverage -- $$$$$$ if you can even qualify.

Step 1: Provide a gov't plan for all Americans. Pay for it with income taxes (progressive). This would provide everyone with at least basic care.

Step 2: Eliminate employer's option to choose health insurance plans. They have no business mucking with our health insurance.

Step 3: Make it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against any applicants for anything or to charge different rates, drop people. It's probably fair to require all people to pay a standard rate.

Without the above, insurance companies will continue to ruin our healthcare system.

Step 1: Monopolize the market with a government program yielding no other options.

Step 2: Already eliminated by Step 1 since there isn't an option.

Step 3: Worst idea yet! It's completely unfair to have all people pay the same thing! If I don't use the service as much as the morbidly obese diabetic, why do I pay the same?!?!?

 

[Navicular]

We should tell people without insurance to get up and get a job and stop being so lazy. People like that are just a drain on the economy. They don't feed into it one little bit... they just keep asking for more money. 😉

 

[gujuDoc]

Step 1: Monopolize the market with a government program yielding no other options.

Step 2: Already eliminated by Step 1 since there isn't an option.

Step 3: Worst idea yet! It's completely unfair to have all people pay the same thing! If I don't use the service as much as the morbidly obese diabetic, why do I pay the same?!?!?

I agree with bowtie. I have met several people who can afford health insurance and just won't pay for it because they don't want the extra expense, yet they talk about buying new expensive cars and other such things, and I've met several who truly don't have the money to afford it. Then I've met several people who'll do anything to abuse the system. A case in point. Several years ago there was a girl in one of my classes that told me how she wanted to not get a job so she could remain on welfare. If she got a job she'd lose her welfare so she refused to get a job. There are a lot of people out there who would be lazy just to get more money from the govt and I think that's part of the problem along with the fact that not every single one of those 47million people are uninsured because they have no choice.

The bigger question to ask is this: "if an uninsured patient came into your clinic asking for help because they were in serious dire need of help, would you treat them?"

 

[OncoCaP]

Step 1: Monopolize the market with a government program yielding no other options.

Step 2: Already eliminated by Step 1 since there isn't an option.

Step 3: Worst idea yet! It's completely unfair to have all people pay the same thing! If I don't use the service as much as the morbidly obese diabetic, why do I pay the same?!?!?

Step 1: Yes, it would be a monopoly -- one that would save us money and allow the healthcare provider to provide care instead of fighting with dozens of different providers. It would provide millions of Americans who basically have no option for insurance (insurance companies are extremely selective on who they will cover with individual coverage -- for example, if you are over 55 or a 1-year-old baby and not the size/ shape they want, you might as well forget it -- it either won't be available at any cost or get ready to write a check for $10K per month). If you do get sick on individual coverage, they will drop you as soon as they can and/or raise your rates to where you cannot afford them.

Many uninsured Americans have employers who provides no or very poor value coverage. For example, Wal-Mart provides its employees with health insurance. However in the 1st year, there is a $25K cap on benefits. If you need chemo, you better have the other $75K lying around. This is not limited to Wal-Mart ... one of nations largest employers.

Step 2: True.

Step 3: Once everyone is covered, the only reason someone would buy extra insurance is if they get really sick and wanted some kind of experimental / unproven / herbal treatment (remember no pre-existing condition discrimination and complete coverage is already provided). Essentially the insurance industry would provide data processing for gov't outsourcing.

 

[novawildcat]

We should tell people without insurance to get up and get a job and stop being so lazy. People like that are just a drain on the economy. They don't feed into it one little bit... they just keep asking for more money. 😉

thats just it, most people that don't insurance DO have jobs. what is the unemployment rate right now? 5%? 45 million uninsured americans is a lot more than 5% of the unemployed workforce which means that most of the 45 million are already working.

 

[OncoCaP]

I agree with bowtie. I have met several people who can afford health insurance and just won't pay for it because they don't want the extra expense, yet they talk about buying new expensive cars and other such things, and I've met several who truly don't have the money to afford it. Then I've met several people who'll do anything to abuse the system. A case in point. Several years ago there was a girl in one of my classes that told me how she wanted to not get a job so she could remain on welfare. If she got a job she'd lose her welfare so she refused to get a job. There are a lot of people out there who would be lazy just to get more money from the govt and I think that's part of the problem along with the fact that not every single one of those 47million people are uninsured because they have no choice.

The bigger question to ask is this: "if an uninsured patient came into your clinic asking for help because they were in serious dire need of help, would you treat them?"

Well, most uninsured all employed, so your "friend" is the exception rather than the rule:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/heal.../09/28/most_uninsured_childrens_parents_work/

WASHINGTON --Most of the 9 million uninsured children in the U.S. live in homes where at least one parent works full time. In more than one-quarter of the cases, there are two working parents.

...

"I think they believe these are low-income people who don't work, who are very different from themselves," said the group's executive director, Ron Pollack. "These are people who work, who are doing the right thing."

...

Overall, 88.3 percent of uninsured children age 18 and under live in households with a working parent. About 70 percent live in households were a parent works full time, year-round, according to the report.


****

As far as me personally, I don't expect to be in charge of the clinic where I work, so it wouldn't be up to me. If it were up to me, I would take on a certain number of uninsured, but I would prefer if the gov't addressed this national healthcare crisis in a more organized way.

Also, have you ever purchased individual health insurance coverage on your own or your family? It's an eyeopener ... there are more exclusions than coverage (which is usually poor high-deductible coverage if you wan to be able to afford it).

 

[Trismegistus4]

You people are getting off topic. The OP didn't ask how to solve the problem, she asked how to answer the question on interviews.

Anyone who asks you this question is almost sure to be a left-winger, so the "correct" answer is as follows: "raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and institute federally-funded single-payer health insurance. Automatically schedule every citizen's--I mean resident's--I mean person who happens to be in the USA's annual checkup for them, and provide federally funded shuttles to get them there in case they lack transportation. Have the federal government purchase all hospitals, and require that doctors be federal employees who follow strict federal standards in their treatment plans. Criminalize tobacco and trans fats, and place a hefty tax on other fatty foods. If they still have behavior-related health problems, send federally-funded visiting nurses, or dieticians, or certified diabetes educators, or whatever is needed in their particular circumstances, out to their home or workplace to follow up and force them to do what is needed. For good measure, make a federal law requiring everyone to wear helmets and life jackets at all times. And while we're at it, criminalize spanking, place all persons on mandatory long-term birth control and require anyone who wishes to become a parent to pass a parent-licensing examination before having their birth control stopped." For good measure, you can add something about ending the reign of the oil companies, mention Haliburton with a look of disgust on your face, and say "I blame Bush."

Congratulations, you just got into medical school.

 

[cgscribe]

I agree with all the concerns people have discussed. A universal care system requires a tremendous amount of fiscal discipline and responsibility, neither of which the government has proven it can handle. There are so many questions (when should universal care not cover an elderly's charges, what orders/tests are covered, who will bear the brunt of payment, etc.) that NO politician would dare address. I'm very wary of any effort to push the system forward, but I think it's headed that way.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Not as bad as health insurance companies 'helping' us.... At least we can elect our gov't leaders. We have no say whatsoever in health insurance companies.

First, I really don't understand where you are getting the idea that the gov't is somehow an efficient machine. They have the worst track record when it comes to correctly managing money. Look at all the Gov't run program, they are in ruins. Yeah, let's put all of health care in their hands. Super idea...

Not really. Your employer picks your insurer to get the cheapest coverage.
Step 1: Provide a gov't plan for all Americans. Pay for it with income taxes (progressive). This would provide everyone with at least basic care.

Step 2: Eliminate employer's option to choose health insurance plans. They have no business mucking with our health insurance.

Step 3: Make it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against any applicants for anything or to charge different rates, drop people. It's probably fair to require all people to pay a standard rate.

Without the above, insurance companies will continue to ruin our healthcare system.

First I think it is funny that the tax would rest almost entirely on the people who do NOT need the service.

So you don't want employers to pick coverage but you are comfortable with the gov't choosing it? You somehow think that the gov't will cut less corners than the insurance companies? Sure, that is why most established doctors will not accept medicaid patients. The Gov't pays terribly.

So with 'socialized heathcare' what will happen is that the overhead will become so high that the Gov't will cut costs wherever it can. Quality will become crap and compensation will be near nothing. So doctors will preferentially accept people who still pay for their health insurance so they can get compensated. Yeah, I agree that is a very equitable system. 🙄

The one good thing about this system is that doctors can finally unionize and strike which before was illegal.

For step 3- I will agree to make it illegal for insurance to discriminate when you can control people's eating habits. People should not be allowed to eat what they want. The Govt should stop them. Really what we should do is give all of our freedom to the gov't and let them choose, oh wait that's precisely what you are proposing...

Step 1: Yes, it would be a monopoly -- one that would save us money and allow the healthcare provider to provide care instead of fighting with dozens of different providers.

Many uninsured Americans have employers who provides no or very poor value coverage. For example, Wal-Mart provides its employees with health insurance. However in the 1st year, there is a $25K cap on benefits.

Step 3: Once everyone is covered, the only reason someone would buy extra insurance is if they get really sick and wanted some kind of experimental / unproven / herbal treatment (remember no pre-existing condition discrimination and complete coverage is already provided). Essentially the insurance industry would provide data processing for gov't outsourcing.

You must not know this but the Gov't is actually by far the worst to deal with. The paper work needed is absurd. Moving to a gov't run system will actually decrease the time a doc has to see patients.

Walmart is notorious for terrible coverage. They have taken a lot of flack recently...so you picked a very non-representative example. Also, 25K in a year is a ****load of medical expense. Perhaps 1 in 1000 will have bills that high.

Once everybody is covered the only real reason people would buy insurance is to get better service, coverage and benefits. You add 47 million more people to systems that are already failing (medicare/ medicaid) and you will have total collapse.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Step 1: Yes, it would be a monopoly -- one that would save us money and allow the healthcare provider to provide care instead of fighting with dozens of different providers. It would provide millions of Americans who basically have no option for insurance (insurance companies are extremely selective on who they will cover with individual coverage -- for example, if you are over 55 or a 1-year-old baby and not the size/ shape they want, you might as well forget it -- it either won't be available at any cost or get ready to write a check for $10K per month). If you do get sick on individual coverage, they will drop you as soon as they can and/or raise your rates to where you cannot afford them.

Have you seen what happens when you do this?? Try Canada. When I was studying their particular socialized healthcare for a class a few years ago there was some pretty terrible things. For instance, it often takes as much as 6 months to just get an MRI. In Canada, private companies aren't allowed to offer the same services the goverment does. So everybody waits 6 months for an MRI (wouldn't want some people to have better care than others - would you?) 6 MONTHS! I can get a homeless or uninsured patient at my clinic into our county hospital in only 3 months. Thats pretty pathetic.

 

[christian15213]

I think the millions of people working in the insurance business would beg to differ.

Capitalism breeds efficiency, while a government run system would do the exact opposite.

I disagree... I look at the USPS... would you want some private company doing that? FED ex and BROWN can't do what uncle sam is doing ... no way no how.

 

[Karina 07]

I'm sympathetic because I take them for what they are! They are a company and have every right to charge people money for a service that they provide. If they provide poor service, people will switch! People can control the market.

I'm avoiding this thread, but one comment here was just too outrageous.

People control the market? Excuse me?

No. Even Adam Smith realized that they don't.

That's why you have government controls on a whole bunch of economic things. Read up on public goods, Coase theorem, etc., and what Adam Smith *really* meant by the invisible hand. It wasn't a positive thing.

 

[Karina 07]

Again somewhat. You can take your business elsewhere. Vote with your dollars. Convince your employer to switch as well if you're locked in and enough people are disgruntled.

Labour, as a whole, and unions are very weak.

*Very* weak. Studying history, it's actually one of the weakest times for labour.

Good ****ing luck.

 

[DrBowtie]

I'm avoiding this thread, but one comment here was just too outrageous.

People control the market? Excuse me?

No. Even Adam Smith realized that they don't.

That's why you have government controls on a whole bunch of economic things. Read up on public goods, Coase theorem, etc., and what Adam Smith *really* meant by the invisible hand. It wasn't a positive thing.

So you're saying that as a doctor, if you provide poor service, people won't switch? and if enough people switch, you won't be out of a job?

Granted this is small scale, it could be extrapolated into larger companies.

 

[DrBowtie]

Labour, as a whole, and unions are very weak.

*Very* weak. Studying history, it's actually one of the weakest times for labour.

Good ****ing luck.

I never once mentioned unions as I think they are a terrible idea.

 

[DrBowtie]

I disagree... I look at the USPS... would you want some private company doing that? FED ex and BROWN can't do what uncle sam is doing ... no way no how.

What do you mean? I'm sure private courier could provide better service. It may cost a premium for the better service, but it could get done better. Especially international.

 

[Karina 07]

So you're saying that as a doctor, if you provide poor service, people won't switch? and if enough people switch, you won't be out of a job?

Granted this is small scale, it could be extrapolated into larger companies.

On the contrary, you should be able to think of plenty of examples where what is *sometimes* true in the small scale isn't true on the large. Because then there are all the other examples. I don't know many (any) doctors out of a job. Maybe some people switch, but other new ones come in. It's a large world out there, with limited options. Maybe your example is true in some specific cases; not in others.

I am just giving the broad economic argument that no, people don't control the market. That's just silly. They can influence it sometimes. Not always. And it's in the not always cases that there's room for the government to step in.

Whether you like unions or not, the point that labour is still very weak remains, and people are largely not in control of what kind of health insurance they can get.

I *think* the person who argued about the postal service may have been thinking about another economic argument, about monopolies. Industries that are natural monopolies, like the postal service, railways, etc., are notoriously inefficient. Companies can do whatever the heck they like there, without government regulation on them. Because there are no other alternatives. People can't choose with their dollars as you like. That's why the postal service is nationalized in so many countries, like the UK (where mail usually takes just a day to get from one place to another), Canada, etc. The government doesn't have much incentive do better than companies would, true, unless they feel public opinion would rise against them or whatnot (though the better they ran it the more they could skim from it rather than taxes). But that's not to say they're naturally worse than companies. On the contrary, they at least have some kind of counterbalancing incentives to not totally rip off the consumer. I might be interpreting this person's argument on this wrong, but that's the economic argument I would use.

 

[OncoCaP]

First, I really don't understand where you are getting the idea that the gov't is somehow an efficient machine. They have the worst track record when it comes to correctly managing money. Look at all the Gov't run program, they are in ruins. Yeah, let's put all of health care in their hands. Super idea...

Well, it's really pretty simple. We spend more than any other industrialized country (~40% more I think), we have more uninsured than any other industrialized country, and we are well behind other industrialized countries in the health of our population. In other words, we have a broken system. Countries that have less expensive healthcare and a healthy population have a government-run system. In other words, I'm advocating something that works, as opposed to a system which is broken, what you are advocating.

[/QUOTE=Instatewaiter;4732648]First I think it is funny that the tax would rest almost entirely on the people who do NOT need the service.

Find someone who doesn't need healthcare and then let's talk.

So you don't want employers to pick coverage but you are comfortable with the gov't choosing it? You somehow think that the gov't will cut less corners than the insurance companies? Sure, that is why most established doctors will not accept medicaid patients. The Gov't pays terribly.

Yes, that's correct. I want our elected officials managing our healthcare instead of unelected capitalists who care nothing for patients and only want to make a buck.

Insurance companies aren't cutting corners. They are simply making a great profit and ripping us off (providing a low value service). As I pointed out above, we are paying enough to cover everyone, but we have 47 million uninsured. I just want what we are paying for, like other people who live in industrialized countries. True, a gov't system isn't perfect either, but as they systems in other countries have proven (unless Americans are somehow less able to manage than other countries) we can get better care for less paid into the system.

Most physicians are less than fond private insurance companies as well (for cutting reimbursables, etc.). In fact, many physicians are advocating a single payer system. There are many physicians who do take Medicare and are doing fine. Medicaid does pay poorly. These system are taking care of many of the sickest and most needy patients and they can't discriminate against unhealthy or even healthy patients who don't meet their height/weight stats exactly. These systems do not insure your average healthy 20 year-old. So your complaint is a little like saying that a surgeon who takes difficult cases must be a bad physician compared to a physician who has better outcomes on average but takes on a more balanced load of difficult and simple cases.

So with 'socialized heathcare' what will happen is that the overhead will become so high that the Gov't will cut costs wherever it can. Quality will become crap and compensation will be near nothing. So doctors will preferentially accept people who still pay for their health insurance so they can get compensated. Yeah, I agree that is a very equitable system. 🙄

Actually, I'm advocating a single payer system, not 'socialized healthcare' where physicians are employees of the state (under my proposed system physicians would be private). Your guess is not backed up by the facts. We are the only industrialized country that doesn't have a single payer system and pretty much every other countries is spending less on healthcare than we are and getting better results. So you can imagine monsters if you want to. When you are ready to return to reality, you'll find that you are advocating a monster.

The one good thing about this system is that doctors can finally unionize and strike which before was illegal.

There are several good things. 1. If our experience is similar to Canada's, physician pay would go up (at least initially until it would go back to current inflation-adjusted levels). 2. Malpractice insurance /claims could be improved (as in the Canadian system). 3. Our population's health would improve. 4. Physicians would have more consistent paperwork requirements, which would provide for better automation and potentially less paperwork. 5. Our healthcare expenditures would go down.

For step 3- I will agree to make it illegal for insurance to discriminate when you can control people's eating habits. People should not be allowed to eat what they want. The Govt should stop them. Really what we should do is give all of our freedom to the gov't and let them choose, oh wait that's precisely what you are proposing...

Yeah sure, and let's privatize the police and military so that anyone can pay them off. Let's get rid of public schools so that people like you can go out and get a job instead of wasting tax payer dollars spent on medical schools. Public roads. Nah. Let's let Brown & root buy land and charge us however much toll they want. This next mile is going to cost you $159.95.

You must not know this but the Gov't is actually by far the worst to deal with. The paper work needed is absurd. Moving to a gov't run system will actually decrease the time a doc has to see patients.

Yes, gov't paperwork sucks. However, they don't discriminate against you and they cost less. Sign me up.

Walmart is notorious for terrible coverage. They have taken a lot of flack recently...so you picked a very non-representative example. Also, 25K in a year is a ****load of medical expense. Perhaps 1 in 1000 will have bills that high.

Walmart's coverage is actually above the norm. Most Americans are employed by small businesses, most of which have worse coverage than what Wal-Mart offers.

Once everybody is covered the only real reason people would buy insurance is to get better service, coverage and benefits. You add 47 million more people to systems that are already failing (medicare/ medicaid) and you will have total collapse.

Yeah, just like every other industrialized countries health care system has collapsed -- not. In fact, our health care system is basically collapsing as our nation's health slips further and further behind that of other countries and as millions get improper care or are bankrupted by it.

 

[OncoCaP]

Here is some additional information from the American Medical Students Association:

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/
Thousands of Americans lose their health insurance every day.

Health care costs continue
to spiral out of control.

No one is secure.

Universal health care refers to the idea that every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care. On this page, you will find the information you need to understand and take action on this issue.

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
The Case for Universal Health Care
Written by Kao-Ping Chua
AMSA Jack Rutledge Fellow 2005-2006
February 10, 2006
INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades, the United States has witnessed skyrocketing health care costs. Health insurance premiums have been rising on average by double-digit percentage points over the past five years, a rate of increase that is 2-3 times the rate of inflation.1 Because of these out-of-control health care costs, there has been a steep rise in the number of uninsured Americans. Currently, more than 45 million Americans lack any form of health insurance, and millions more are “underinsured” – they have insurance but lack adequate financial protection from health care costs.
While this problem was formerly a problem confined to low-income Americans, more and more middle-class citizens are becoming directly affected by the problem.

In the face of rising health care costs, fewer employers are able to provide their workers with health insurance; the percentage of employers offering health insurance dropped from 69% in 2000 to 60% in 2005. Even if employers are able to provide health insurance benefits, the trend is towards providing high-deductible insurance that covers an ever-shrinking percentage of health care costs.1 The net result is that more and more employed middle-class Americans find themselves with low-quality or no access to health care.
The erosion of employer-based coverage has been partially offset by increased enrollment in Medicaid, which is designed to provide a safety-net for the lowest income Americans.2 However, Medicaid has recently been the subject of relentless funding cuts by cash-strapped states and Congressional representatives who are ideologically opposed to welfare programs. As the program continues to be slashed, it is certain that Medicaid will not be able to offset the losses in employer-based insurance, resulting in more and more uninsured individuals.

Health insecurity is at an all-time high. In a time when thousands of people lose their health insurance every day, when health care is becoming elusive to even well-to-do Americans, and when any person is just one pink slip away from becoming uninsured, it becomes clear that health care for all is not just important to achieve, but imperative.

(read more at the link(s) indicated above)