Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me, that's the very reason you don't have single payer. I'm afraid it's going to be one large Medicaid in which rationing occurs because the govt. is strapped for money and can't afford to provide healthcare for all these people.
If we can afford the Iraq War and bailing out Wall Street, we can afford single payer.
With the money that goes towards health care, we can afford single payer.
Quote:
Since we could finance a fairly good system, like the Norwegian, Danish or Swedish system, with the public money we are already spending (60% of health costs), why do we need to raise the additional 40% (from employers and individuals)?
There are three reasons why the U.S. health care system costs more than other systems throughout the world. One, we spend two to three times as much as they do on administration. Two, we have much more excess capacity of expensive technology than they do (more CT scanners, MRI scanners, and surgery suites). Three, we pay higher prices for services than they do.
There is no doubt that we do not need to spend more than we currently spend to cover comprehensive care for everyone. But the initial transition to a universal system would be very disruptive if we spent less. That is because we have a tremendous medical infrastructure, some of which would likely retain its excess capacity during the transition phase. Secondly, we would likely retain salaries for health professionals at their current levels. Thirdly, we would cover much more than most other countries do by including dental care, eye care, and prescriptions. And for these reasons we would need the extra 40% that we are already spending - but NOT more. We could cover all the uninsured and improve coverage for those who have skimpy coverage for the same amount we are currently spending!
That's why we have percentages to look at. Medicare leads the pack in claims denied.
And Medicare leads the pack by a vast vast vast margin in the number of claims handled. You should read further, as this report actually details reasons for denials. And you should keep in mind that a portion of the denials are for unnecessary procedures-------which, by the way, Medicare doesn't shift back on to the patient, but puts the costs back on the healthcare provider.
That changes this a little bit.
By the way, this is the second thread on this, was this blog in your e-mail this morning/
That is precisely the issue. Seniors are being denied treatment due to their age (see Palin's Death Panels)!
Back that up, please. You made the assertion that seniors are being denied treatment due to their age. Do you have any facts to support that assertion?
It's adminstered by the states but the federal govt provides the funding and regulates how the states use it. Having practiced in 4 of them (Arizona, California, Oklahoma and Texas) the same type of rationing occurred in each one.
This is just my opinion but it almost seems because these people are poor, rationing is somehow justified in their case which angers me as a physician because we are taught to treat people the same regardless of income status (doesn't always happen but we are taught that nonetheless). And every year, it seems to get worse with regards to restrictions.
You *should* treat people the same regardless of their income status.
What treatments does Medicare generally deny that a private insurer would okay for a senior? Treatments that without them they're left worse off than they would have been had they received the treatments?
And Medicare leads the pack by a vast vast vast margin in the number of claims handled. You should read further, as this report actually details reasons for denials. And you should keep in mind that a portion of the denials are for unnecessary procedures-------which, by the way, Medicare doesn't shift back on to the patient, but puts the costs back on the healthcare provider.
That changes this a little bit.
By the way, this is the second thread on this, was this blog in your e-mail this morning/
It's all over the Internet on the RW blogs who are employing the same old trick - they know that their "readers" wont figure out that the article the blog quotes isnt citing "claims denied to seniors only" in its calculation of denied treatments by private insurers.
As some right winger on here once said about something else, "It's like shooting ducks in a barrel"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
