No. The quality of treatment given would fall. It may take a while, but in a few years it would be different. Once potential physicians realized the drastic fall in income, the long hours and torturous school would not be worth it. You can deny it if you like, but that is what would happen.

What makes our system so nice is the quality of the services rendered. It would not remain the same. That is like saying that if every person who owned a Mercedes started buying Kia's because of the price, that eventually a Mercedes would be the same price. It would self correct.
That is laughable. What would have to change for Mercedes to compete Kia's? number of people employed. QUALITY of parts and labor used to build the cars. Etc....

It will change. What you want is a utopian thing. "Ain't gonna happen."


My premiums have risen over 50% in the last 2 years. I also took a coverage hit. Went to 90%-10%. And I still like what I have.


I do not understand why people can't get this. IF YOU MAKE A WHOLESALE CHANGE TO THE WAY THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS OPERATED, IT WILL NOT REMAIN THE SAME. For some reason, a lot of people are saying "We can have the same thing for less". Although that sounds good, it just will not happen. Yes, you will have the people who will continue to practice medicine after these "changes" are enforced. But the amount of people practicing will shrink. It will not remain the same. You can not get the same thing for $500.00 that you paid $1500.00 before. Unless something drastic happens to create that change. And that drastic change will be the catalyst for the fall of our medical treatment system as we know it. Take the money away and you take away the draw for a lot of the best doctors in this country and abroad.



I agree with this. But, it takes a lot of resources to process medical claims and to oversee a "insurance plan". So some profit should be expected. But make no mistake about how much GOOD doctors are making. Trust me I know. As far as the researchers go, I guess you have never been into or seen a good R&D department or company. They make plenty of money. Out of all of them, I would say that the hospitals see less return than any of the ones listed.


No argument there.


Why must the government be involved to provide "security" for the elderly and indigent? Are you saying that there is a difference in the way they receive treatment or the quality of treatment? Careful how you answer that. You just may prove my point for me.


It's not just medicare. It's Medicaid as well. All government programs (welfare, SS, etc...) are tax payer dependant. This Health care "solution" will be another giant hole to dump tax dollars into. It will grow and grow.. Not one single government program has ever gotten smaller. This one will be no different.

We, as a nation, already provide medical treatment for the poor, indigent, illegals, etc... They are not expected to pay. They may be asked, but can't get blood from a turnip. On the other hand, some of the people who could afford health care coverage, do not have it. Why? The cost. This is the driving force behind this policy. You can go to Blue Cross and Blue Shield's website and purchase insurance for close to what I get it for. This is not that complicated.

A quote for family of 6, it ranges from 321.00 per month to 449.00. Even add dental for 47.00 a month.

Just for your use. Top right of page allows you to search forplans.
http://www.bcbs.com/



 

There would not be a drastic fall in income for doctors. Doctors associations and medical schools control the supply of doctors thus keeping rough control over the pay within their profession and hospitals know how much it costs to have doctors that draw customers. We're talking about the government providing a public insurance option within a fundamentally private healthcare industry. Perhaps the government will "dictate" certain osts, they do so based on a rough knowledge of the costs and they have no control over the current price of things or the market demand for medical care. If we just assume the worst scenario for the administration of any idea then of course we can make easy arguments against it.

That is not true. Our quality of health care is not that great. The care is very inconsistent from one community to the next and overall we are less healthy and live shorter lives than many other modern industrial nations. We spend far more than any other nation on health care but we don't get much for it and many people who have insurance eventually get screwed out of care. Meanwhile more than a hundred thousand people die annually from infections they got while hospitalized. We have a system that revolves around the profit-making of insurance companies which itself provides no incentive to the quality of health practitioners and researchers.

That is a dissimilar analogy because you're referring to the current public payment options for elderly and the poor and comparing them to private insurance. The people in those programs, at least as far as I know in my city, go to the same doctors as those with private insurance. The only difference is the method by which the doctors are paid. So really your analogy is something like everyone gets a Ford and some people pay more than others.

I don't want the same for less because our current system sucks. I want a system where incentives go to the actual health care experts rather than to insurance companies. How do we benefit from health insurance companies taking what appears to be roughly 15% of my premium for their own profit. That does not encourage greater health for anyone.

Doctors in developed countries with ACTUAL national healthcare systems (not what is proposed in US right now) have doctors who make very good livings. If all people want to do is make lots of money there are much more efficient ways of doing that other than becoming a doctor. Doctors are highly respected, they use their intelligence and skill and education to help people and many find it very stimulating and rewarding. I know several young people right now who are gearing up to become doctors and none of them are doing it because they think its a great way to make lots of money. Granted, doctors have to be well compensated to make it worth their time but as I said before right now the flow of money in the private health insurance setup is not flowing toward the doctors, its going to the insurance companies.


Yes it does take resources to oversee an insurance system and there are two options for how this would come about. Either some investors think there is a buck to be made by administering such a service or for some it could be seen as a public necessity and that the costs of administering claims could be paid for by the revenue without the expectation of making a profit off of the the bureaucratic process of filing insurance claims. If there is X amount of money for health care, why would we want to ensure that the people who are setting up the payment process are the ones making all the money, why should the money and incentives not be focused more on the actual health experts?

Then there is hope!

Suppose my neighbor is financially destroyed by the costs of treatment and hospitalization for cancer. He can no longer afford to help his children pay for college. He can no longer make his house payments. Suppose the marriage and family is torn apart by the stress of the incident. He can no longer work at his same job, etc. This is not just tough luck for him, its bad for me too and for the well being of the entire community. Plus now its statistically more likely for children to be less productive members of society during their lives and the family splitting trauma may have any assortment of ill effects on the community (crime etc). Of course this is all hypothetical but clearly not having health coverage can produce this sort of instability which is a drain on all of us including economically. Plus there is the simple moral perspective of it. If we have food and the ability to cure people's sickness who cannot afford it, as well as the means to do so, we should.

As far as difference between the free public plans to treat the elderly and poor vs the treatment of those paying monthly premiums, there should be no difference in the level of care available.

The difference being discussed right now is that a public insurance option would operate just like private insurance--members would pay monthly premiums but the idea is that they would use the massive group resources to pay for the operating expenses and costs of care without a huge chunk of the revenue going to profit for the organization's investors. Medicare and Medicaid do not operate like this.

We do it though in a very costly way that leaves many people unable to access care even if they are willing to pay. My brother was hospitalized once for a sudden onset of a psychological condition and he was on my dad's insurance and was about 20 and a college student. Because he was no longer able to attend classes the insurance kicked him off the plan (even though it was due to a health emergency and the doctors themselves said there was no way he could attend any schooling for several months). So once he was kicked off the plan he was of course uninsurable because he had recently been hospitalized. Luckily my family has resources and the government had COBRA insurance that was $500 a month so that he could still have some sort of coverage. This allowed him to be seen by a doctor and to get on a medication routine. If he didn't have the financial safety net of my parents he would have become a wandering crazy homeless guy on the street but now he is doing okay, but still can't buy regular insurance even though its been like 2 years since his hospitalization (disqualified due to a pre-existing condition).

I beg to differ. Salaries will drop. Check out what the difference is for General M.D.'s across the world. The US is higher by far. We will become much like the rest of the world.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml

Check this out. US specialist make almost double what their Canadian counterparts do.
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/article/Canada/Canadian-Physician-Salaries/2795

Look, you just can't have it both ways. You want cheap and affordable for all, something must change. If you want to buy $10.00 worth of rice for $1.00, something is going to give.


I agree. We are less healthy. But that has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the lack of exercise and bad diets. Look at the amount of obese in this country. That has nothing to do with anything or anyone but each individual.


Well, the quality of the "help" is directly proportional to the amount of money paid for services. Less money, less quality. Just the way it is. Same as any business.


Well, you are right about one thing, they go to the same doctors. But what the doctors are getting paid to treat these patients are a fraction of what I would pay. Why? Because the government WILL NOT PAY ANY MORE. That is why people like me are facing higher and higher cost. They will make it up some where. And if they can't, the quality of services and doctors will drop.


Already provided a link for salaries.


NO, now the government will do it. They will dictate what is paid out. And you're right. There is going to be X amount of taxes collected for health care. But what if the services needed equal X+Y+Z? They going to take more from me? Probably at first. When a bill is sent and they only pay 25% of it, because that is what the government says it is worth, what then?
 

As much as I would want everyone to have the same everywhere, it just isn't feasible. While this scenario is real, there isn't a practical way to deal with this. Maybe a National fund for situations like this. But to change the Health Care system for 15% (debateable number) of the population is just not right. Help them? Yes. But a wholesale change for everyone? No.  


I agree.


But they will only pay what they can. If it's 50 bucks, so be it. If it is nothing, so be it. If they can't pay for insurance now, what makes you think they can when this is put into law? The tax payer will be burdened with this system. And you know it.


Well, loopholes like that have to be closed. Period. It is wrong, but it does happen. I would say that it is not common though. But it happens. And it shouldn't.

We are unhealthy because of our abundant supply of fast food and our sedentary life style.

Except when they have an emergency and then those of us who pay premiums have to pay more to compensate the hospital.