I asked this before about univeesal HEALTH INSURANCE. People came back with HEALTH CARE.?

Question

I try again. If the private sector could provide HEALTH INSURANCE to all Americans they would have done it by now. Some people said the problem was 'the government'. Others gave me an entire book on the woes of Canada. One more time: A single payer, universal HEALTH INSURANCE plan that will cover ALL Americans. CARE will stay as it is, the difference will be INSURANCE. Eliminate Medicare, Medicade and all the rest of it to pay for it. Everyone pays, everyone is covered. We already pay the bills, particularly for the 'emergency room' medical care that people keep pretending covers the medical needs of the uninsured. We pay for that. Now....argue for or against UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE, not CARE!

Answer 1

The reason that your idea of Universal Insurance will not work is that it will never get passed.  To many politicians are to deeply indebted to the big insurance lobbies, and big medicine.  

You simply can not make such a plan work, unless you change the basic structure of how health care is paid for today.  The private insurance companies will NEVER create such a program, despite the fluffy garbage that comes from the Bush administration about helping people get affordable insurance.   They see all the people they have excluded do to pre-existing conditions as a money drain, and have no intension of allowing them to be included in the subscriber base.  

The only practical way to insure everyone, is to allow a quasi governmental organization, negotiate pricing for all care to all patients Nationwide.  The law setting this up should make it illegal to refuse the federal payments.  But it should also give providers the right to give written notice that the charges for the care at their facility will require additional payment by the patient, over and above the government payment.  

So they can not claim they are bing forced to take a payment that is below what they should receive.  The Agency will establish a local 'reasonable and customary payment' , (private insurance loves to use this term when they only pay half of the bill), and that will be paid to all the providers in the local for a given procedure.  IF you feel the quality of your care is such that you should charge a higher fee, go right ahead.  And if the Free Market determines you are charging to much, you will go out of business.  Capitalism at it's best.

Since all providers will be required by law to accept the payments from the government agency, you can go to any doctor of hospital that you choose.  But you will have to decide if you want to use a given hospital or doctor, if they choose to charge more than the customary rate.  If you have the means and feel they are better, by all means, use them.  You will be free to go to any doctor or hospital you can afford.  But most will not need to charge anything over and above what the agency pays, if the customary rates are set fairly.

This is the EXACT same system that is used by big insurance to set the rates they are paying to the doctors and hospitals you are using today.   So let's here why this works fine if they are making big bucks off of it, but won't work if the government is saving us big bucks in doing it.  

Once you know what it will cost to pay for all the care, and let's face it, the hospitals and doctors all have the records of what was done and how much their costs were, so a data base could be compiled.  So you calculate what the total cost would be and maybe charge a head tax to every person in the US to pay for the cost.  With no need to provide profits to the giant insurance companies that are currently making record profits off your premiums by squeezing the doctors and hospitals, you should see no higher cost to insure everyone, than what is paid now to insure only 80% of the public.

The same Agency will negotiate prices for drugs from the manufacturers, to provide a mail order service or local service for medicines.  And if a drug company wants to bring out a new drug to replace an existing drug, they will have to prove that it actually works better or as well with less side effects.  No more bringing out a new drug just because it has a patent and can be used to gouge the public.  And an end to the c**p of charging US citizens $2.00 a pill for the same pill that they sell to foreign countries for only a dime.   IF the other countries want to have the benefit of these new medicines, then they can darn well pay for them, of go without.  

THE BIG LOSERS IS THIS?

-Drug companies that have to resort to reasonable charges to cover research and cost.

-Insurance companies that can no longer gouge the hospital, gouge the doctor, and gouge the patient, all for the almighty dollar.

THE BIG WINNERS-

-Hospitals and Doctors that will get paid for services by everyone who walks through the door.  No need to pad bills to cover non-paying patients, as all patients will have coverage for the customary charges.

- Patients who will no longer have to worry about the maize of in-network, out-of-network, and other garbage that insurance companies have evolved to get out of paying for services that they have promised.

-Patients who can go to any doctor they choose to see, as long as they can pay for any added charges that the doctor feels he should receive.  But they will know that the vast majority of doctors will see them, and will only charge the customary fee for the service.  

-American Businesses that will not have to provide premium payment  out of their profits to pay for basic health coverage, and who will have a healthier work force, leading to less absenteeism and higher productivity.

- American workers who will no longer see payments for premiums taken out of their paychecks.

Answer 2

I would like to recommend you some useful infomation here.http://insurance.online-assistant.info/b...

Answer 3

I don't think there is one simple and univeral solution.  One problem we face is people who don't earn a lot of money don't purchase health insurance even if their employer offers it because they can afford it.  If a person only makes $300 a week, even just $20 a week seems like a lot of money.  I supose the government could pass laws requiring everyone to purchase health insurance weather they want to or not.

Answer 4

look what a fiasco mandatory auto insurance has become.   you can pretty much control how you drive.   your driving record becomes the insurance premium you pay .   if no one will insure you privately , there are the sr22 , yes you have "INSURANCE"  no there are no real benefits .    your health records will become your new health care insurance premiums.   insurance plans will vary , you can pay a lot and have usuless coverage .   the only one really profiting is the insurance company (who support gov. legistlation)  and the government (fines, keeping their jobs thorugh bureacracy).    i think it is all an accounting matter.   we pay about 1/3 of our income in taxes.   canadians/ UK about 40 percent .  the french get hit as high as about 1/2 of their income.   i personally would rather pay my own rather than pay the government to pay it for me.   i'll probably get a better deal findingn insurance than they will.   we have all seen gov spending out of control and the s***w / nut unit costing 100,000.00     i can only imagine how much they will whack us for this insurance

Answer 5

What you are arguing for was introduced in the 94th Congress in 1976 by Congressman Al Ullman of Oregon. It was given the catchy name of "Ameriplan" and divided the populace into three groups. Group one consisted of all those who were wealthy enough to pay their own health insurance premiums out of pocket, which is precisely what they would have done. The second group would be the employed who would pay a percentage of their premium based on their income. The higher their income, the higher the percentage paid. If the person becomes unemployed, the government would pay the premium until the person is again employed. The third group consists of those who would have the government pay their premium.

Despite Al Ullman being a liberal Democrat, his bill received the endorsement of the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association. It went nowhere because the Congress was consumed with the after-effects of the Watergate scandal and President Ford was tied up with the growing rate of inflation, which his successor watched turn into "stagflation".

Answer 6

That's the UK system, I paid National Insurance contributions all my life, nothing else. That paid for Health, unemployment and social services. My wife pays £59 a month for NI on income of £1051, she's part-time. We all have long term health issues and my son has Schizophrenia, he gets full health care, including weekly blood tests and expensive medication, professional regular assessment, hospital stays, and a community nurse and social workers who take him out three times a week. He also has a house rent paid and an allowance and all bills are managed for him. We have also had counselling support for ourselves, we have never paid anything, not a bean.

I gather in America, that even a good health policy can exclude mental health issues. We would be wiped out if we lived there. When people are surveyed about the National Health Service there are grumbles but only because we want it even better. I personally have never had any problems with the solution you propose and lawyers and big companies don't get fat on it - so a national insurance scheme is the best.

Answer 7

Your right. But people won't get it until it hits home. Since the baby boomers are the majority now, there is a chance of getting it passed because of their voting power. That's if their not too sick or so poor they don't care anymore. People don't realize that in this so-called great country of America, if you don't have the money, you will be left to die-period. Murder by Medicaid is the reality because the paper work and approval for treatment is difficult and time consuming, and many doctors won't except Medicaid.

Answer 8

Well universal health care has it's ups and downs.  The fact is not whether it is a good idea or not but whether it would work in this country or not.  I think that it is a good idea and I think that Germany, Canada, and Britian have all done a good job with their health care.  I think the major problem with this country is CEOs wanting no one to have any money except them so that they can exploit the working class.  This has seemed to flow over into the medical industry.  Instead of caring about people and actually helping them, they turn it into a money making scheme.  Most people in this country are terrified of the Government having power over this because they think we are going to turn into Russia.  This myth is exploited by big corporations who want to keep people without universal things so that they will come be practically slaves in their company like they have done to other countries.  I think just getting everyone to be able to have health care would be good as 44 mil people are without it.  I think that having universal health care would be good you would just have to come up with a good way to implement it.

Answer 9

The problem with "everyone pays, everyone is covered" is that some people CAN'T pay.  Then the govnerment pays their share and TAX you and me to cover it.  So what is the difference between that and the other plans you propose to eliminate?????