Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"That 4% grows due to the fact there are no reimbursements to the hospitals at all - no insurance, no government money , no anything." What's the difference between someone who has no insurance and an illegal alien? < Reimbursement wise none, I mentioned that group because it is an additional burden on a system already with major issues, I don't think I am wrong there, am I ? Are we not allowed to use an example ? I could have used uninsured - underinsured, etc.. used the illegals because soon I believe they will become uninsured citizens. Not complaining about that as I believe it may be the best choice available in a situation that has been allowed to grow to this proportion for a multitude of reasons, with plenty of blame to go around...and is a complicated issue to be sure. cannot afford to take care of every person on the planet...wish we could, but we can't.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Talk about a situation ripe for abuse! This kind of system is a gift to the insurance companies< and the complexity that comes along with it - sit down and try and figure out medicare for someone and what plan is best based on a variety of factors, and do they need supplmental plans, or additional plans etc... made my head hurt...
Originally Posted By jonvn "Are we not allowed to use an example ?" Of course you can, it's just that illegal aliens are no different than anyone else who is uninsured. There are a lot of them here, legal or otherwise, so I asked was there a special reason for illegal aliens being singled out. What your example shows to me is if we simply had universal health care, this would no longer be a problem. Hospitals would be able to function more efficiently and overall costs would likely go down for everyone.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>I know this has been covered to some degree here, but in Canada, things like cigarettes and booze are taxed heavily as a way of paying for the health care. Logic being those people would need more than the next group. Do the same for fast food, racy cars, whatever. << >>Yes, that works to a point. If you tax something too much, though, you start to create a black market. At some point, people will balk, and start engaging in criminal activity. << Psst. Hey, buddy, wanna buy a Big Mac? I got fries too.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <What your example shows to me is if we simply had universal health care, this would no longer be a problem. Hospitals would be able to function more efficiently and overall costs would likely go down for everyone.< While I understand what this means for county hospitals etc., what happens to the 'for profit' hospitals ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^ btw many of which are research hospitals . Asking because I do not know...but seems like this could be an issue
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, if you are a for profit hospital, it means you get paid for everyone who visits, and no longer have to jack up rates on others to cover people who are uninsured or underinsured. It also means you can start to offer some services for extra fees that otherwise you would not be reimbursed otherwise, causing new types of insurance to be created for this type of system. For example, you want to go to a nicer hospital? Better food? Costs extra. Want your health care and basic maintenance paid for? That's covered. Want glasses? Paid for. Want contacts? Extra. Want colored contacts? Extra. And so on. This is one option. I think it works this way in Canada, for example.
Originally Posted By jonvn Research hospitals also work on grants, as well. No reason they can't continue. In a for profit hospital, it means that they will know that the services they provide will be paid for. This really does lower their costs.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <It also means you can start to offer some services for extra fees that otherwise you would not be reimbursed otherwise, causing new types of insurance to be created for this type of system. < here is where my fear comes in. We still will have a very much financially tiered system. So for those who have the above scenario already today - we may still be able to have it but it will come at a much greater premium than today... just want to make sure I am understanding this correctly... btw ..maybe avro or someone will chime in, but something close to this is my understanding of how it is in Canada, from friends who tell me they cannot afford the uptick to 'nicer' accomodations..
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <In a for profit hospital, it means that they will know that the services they provide will be paid for. This really does lower their costs. < I can only speak to the Chicago area but most if not all of the for profit hospitals left are in areas where the majority of their services are reimbursed, that is why they are still open, as opposed to those who have closed. What you are saying is that maybe for profits could return to some areas they have left......maybe I have to noodle on that one for a while.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Research hospitals also work on grants, as well. No reason they can't continue. < do we know what % are grants and what % are from procedures ?
Originally Posted By jonvn I expect that each hospital is different. The thing is that you can have a tiered system, of course. Why not? So insurance companies can still exist. They simply exist to pay for extras that go beyond basic good coverage. Things that would be stupid to deny. "No, you can't have the colored contact lenses." Why not if that is the only sort of thing they are covering anyway? Costs for insurers would go down, as well. There really is very little reason to not do this sort of thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <_That_ is exactly what frightens me about universal health care in the US. I think it's time we established universal coverage here, but every time it's been discussed they start throwing around phrases like "working with the insurance industry", and floating ideas like choosing your insurance carrier. What those thing add up to is that they are talking about is mandating that everyone buy their own insurance from a company that is out to make a profit. Naturally some subsidy would be available for people that can't afford it. Talk about a situation ripe for abuse! This kind of system is a gift to the insurance companies. I'd love to be a player in an industry where I could get a law passed that required everyone to buy my product.> I don't favor that kind of solution. It was my problem with Hillary-care in the 90's, and with Romney's program in Mass. more recently. It's a half-posteriored solution. Note, however, that this is NOT the same thing as a single-payer system, which is what I favor. I'm totally with you when people start talking about "working with the insurance industry" etc. No. That model got us the mess we have, and you're quite right about the problems involved in trying to involve them - which amounts to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I favor single-payer.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I expect that each hospital is different. The thing is that you can have a tiered system, of course. Why not? So insurance companies can still exist. They simply exist to pay for extras that go beyond basic good coverage. Things that would be stupid to deny. "No, you can't have the colored contact lenses." Why not if that is the only sort of thing they are covering anyway? Costs for insurers would go down, as well. There really is very little reason to not do this sort of thing< The contacts issue doesn't bother me ( and quite frankly contacts cheaper than glasses these days anyway ) I'd be more concerned about created levels of doctors ...care
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, I can see what you are saying. IF you want to pay more to get more than what you are getting, why not? We ALREADY have different levels of care for people, based on their ability to pay.
Originally Posted By ecdc I was reading about single-payer systems in Wikipedia when I came across this: "For example, U.S. ranks 22nd in infant mortality, between Taiwan and Croatia, 46th in life expectancy, between Saint Helena and Cyprus, and 37th in health system performance, between Costa Rica and Slovenia." We must be proud.
Originally Posted By jonvn What drags us down is that many people are simply not insured, and have little to no access to health care, other than the ER.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The execs will be fine, but there are those who still need to fend for themselves. That's why if jobs are lost in the insurance industry, it's not going to be the executives that feel the pinch.>> The little guys will be fine too. They may lose their jobs with the insurance company, but the government will need a bunch of people with experience processing health care claims. They will hire you insurance guys and you will have a job that is more secure, with better benefits and an honest-to-God pension plan. It would be the best danged thing that ever happened to you!
