Real British Healthcare Headlines

[rancid]

Can you back that statement up with some data? In Switzerland, they mandated insurance coverage for everyone thinking the same thing. Everyone ended up using it more for the smallest of things, running costs up even further.

They may have been using the system more as you state but there is no data that I can find saying it cost more overall.

An example- With no insurance, Jane Sixpack has some pain and goes to the ER (b/c no doctors office or clinic will see her without money up front or insurance). She has labwork that shows she has an ordinary UTI. However, because she came to the ER and the physician will be liable for anything else the patient may have, the physician orders an ultrasound to rule out serious problems. She has bloodwork. She spends 3 hours in the ER. Total bill- $2000-3000.

Same patient another scenario. Did not go to ER because she has no insurance. Simple UTI spreads to her kidneys. Now seriously sick. Calls ambulance. Brought to ER, admitted to hospital, receives 7 days of IV antibiotics in the hospital. Total cost-- $10000

Now --universal care with over utilization by Jane Sixpack. Goes to doctors office 10 times in a year b/c she remembers pain from last kidney infection which required her above hospitalization. Hypochondiac never has a UTI. Ten urine cultures done and bill for 10 office visits. Cost $1000-2000

Even with overutilization as you claim will occur, it would still be cheaper because of access to care early in disease course and care can be initiated at lower expense. If you don't believe me, go sit in anER waiting room for a day and see what you are paying for. At least half of the patients there do not have anything remotely resembling an emergency. Just getting a doctors visit at the most expensive and inefficient way.

 

[Lynnie]

There could/should be reform, but not a national public, non-public access plan. (Just as on another thread, drilling for natural gas leads to drilling for oil - implementing this plan will migrate into a nationalized 'free' healthcare plan that delivers subpar healthcare.)

On the pre-ex situation, there are laws which protect someone moving from one plan to another with a pre-ex.

Once this bill is killed, there will be new bills proposed for a hybrid.....a 'reform.' And, the carriers will agree. This is win-win.

However, what I don't see mentioned here is the number of people who make the choice to not insure themselves: economy, not make enough money, etc.....we can come up with many excuses......but, same person is spending $250/mo on illegal drugs and/or beer/alcohol, going out to dine.......choose your venom.

I stand pretty firm on we make our choices, we live with them.

 

[30ashopper]

The reason left-flank Democrats are so adamant about a public option is because they know it is an opening wedge for the government to dominate U.S. health care. That's also why the health-care industry, business groups, some moderates and most Republicans are opposed. Team Obama likes the policies of the first group but wants the political support of the second. And they're trying to solve this Newtonian problem -- irresistible forces, immovable objects -- by becoming less and less candid about the changes they really favor.

Mr. Emanuel echoes his boss and says a government health plan is needed to keep the private sector "honest," but then why don't we also need a state-run oil company, or nationalized grocery store chain? (Or auto maker? Never mind.) The real goal is to create a program backstopped by taxpayers that can exert political leverage over the market.

In its strongest version, the federal plan would receive direct cash subsidies, allowing it to undercut private insurers on consumer prices. This would quickly lead to "crowd out," the tendency of supposedly "free" public programs to displace private insurance. As a general rule, Congress has to spend $2 of taxpayer money to provide $1 in new benefits. More precise academic studies of expansions in Medicaid and the children's insurance program put the crowd-out effect somewhere between 25% and 60%.

Because this is so expensive, the public version Mr. Schumer favors would supposedly receive no special advantages. But this is meaningless when Democrats are planning to mandate the benefits that private insurers must provide, the patients they must accept, and how much they can charge. Oh, and a government plan would still have an implicit taxpayer guarantee a la Fannie Mae, giving it an inherent cost-of-capital advantage.

The Public Option Two-Step - WSJ.com