Now this is some good debate going back and forth. I like this. I agree that the healthcare system is broken. Doctors and hospitals are not reaping any great benefits in the current system, while health insurance and drug companies are scoring record profits.
As for doctors going out of practice because of malpractice, my question is, was the doctor found negligent? Did he or she actually cause serious injury or death to a patient(s)? Usually there is something there. Most malpractice claims are not won. The reason there is a great deal of "negligence" is a function of systematic issues inside hospitals more often than not. Unfortunately doctors get the short end of the stick in some of these cases. But instead of tort reform, there needs to be more concern about the system of healthcare itself. What I've found is that the more that healthcare is treated as a business, the more hospitals cut corners and costs so as to create more bottom value. They do this at their peril. Costs are usually cut in terms of ancillary staff and sometimes even nurses. Some hospitals do try to implement process improvement techniques, but usually it is peicemeal. Nonetheless, much of the malpractice would end if the focus were on the quality and the system of healthcare. Anyway, malpractice is a drop in the bucket, and tort reform will have little or no effect.
As for universal healthcare, we already got it in a sense. The poor and indigent already come to the ER for their healthcare needs. This is the absolute most expensive place to go to get their healthcare taken care of. And it taxes the system. I know the regional hospital network that I worked for wrote off somewhere around 15 million a year in indigent care. These people need to be seeing primary physicians, but can't because they don't have a means for health insurance.
The middle class is the group suffering most today. Even in 92, when the Clintons were trying to get universal healthcare implemented, it was much, much better. If you worked, your employer covered you in most cases with decent healthcare. Now employers are forced to transfer the costs to the consumer. We can rant that the businesses that do this are greedy and just want to save a buck, and many cases that happens, but it is much more difficult for an employer, especially smaller employers, to keep health benefits at anything near what they were 6 or 7 years ago. Now middle class Americans pay more out of pocket just to have health insurance, and receive much less in coverage. And many fall through the cracks and don't even carry it. And that is the group that suffers most.
As for government run, universal healthcare, I am not sure. I'd like to see some way that allows doctors and hosptials to have more power over the system. I am afraid that may be asking too much of the health insurance companies who are really to blame in this mess. I think you will see universal healthcare of some form or fashion in the next ten years, and it will be an improvement. But there has to be a better answer in there somewhere.
2007-04-10 23:12:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by David G 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Interesting question, and one that I have thought about in great detail.
There is no question in my mind that Tort reforms are needed in the medical field. The idea that a person can be correct 100% of the time when trying to cure disease is ridiculous. The high cost of malpractice insurance is a cost that gets passed on to the consumer. Another effect is tons of unnecessary testing performed just to rule out the slim chance of some underlying serious condition for which the doctor can be sued.
But, that issue is not the meat of your question.
I would favor the establishment of a publicly owned, non-profit insurance company which provides a lower tier, basic healthcare insurance. Private insurance companies could continue to sell policies for upper tier coverage that fill in gaps from the basic plan.
Every American would be required to purchase this basic, affordable coverage. The cost of the policy should have an upper end cap and progress downward based on income level to the point of free for poverty level incomes. This would put all Americans in a single group fund, which will create economy of service.
It would be vitally important that the funds generated in this entity not be mingled with the general treasury funds, as done with the social security funds. There would be years that this insurance group would have a surplus and years with a deficit. In surplus years, the cost of the policies should be lowered. In deficit years it should be increased. If the funds go into the general treasury, the cost of these policies would never go down. They would only increase when deficit years roll around. One deficit years would create an increase, which might be followed by 4 or 5 surplus years. The government would enjoy the surplus, then increase the cost again in year 6 because of another deficit. This is one of the major problems with the social security system. The government uses the social security system as a revenue source. There is a major danger of the same thing happening if a national healthcare system is established. Americans would find the cost of healthcare continuously going up if it becomes a general treasury item.
Eliminating the profit from a basic health plan could lower the cost of insurance 20% or more. With a group that includes every American, we could see a 40% drop in insurance cost. Keeping upper tier insurance available thru private health plans would keep the medical industry vibrant.
2007-04-11 02:06:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Perplexed Bob 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
You'll laugh when you read this, but I think insurance companies should be made to take the same medical
courses as medical professionals before they can sell it.
They should also be made to do an internship in their local
hospital. Especially the ER.
The alternative to not getting UHC will mean disaster to our
future generations. It's just a matter of time.
I know what you wrote about your brother is true, & it's the
stuff like that, that will contribute to less doctors & more
illness. That in turn, will lead to a less productive society.
If the cons are upset about welfare now, just wait.
2007-04-11 06:01:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think there should be government mandates on prices of medical procedures and medications. Drive the cost down, and coverage costs go down. We also need to improve preventative health care. BY mandating yearly or bi-annually exams through jobs, or insurance companies, this will close the gap in some unforeseen illnesses, therefore reducing the need for ER care, and allowing more care to those who truly have emergencies. Most people seen in the ER are there for things that could be taken care of during business hours. This makes Emergency health care slower for those people having ER needs.
2016-04-01 08:38:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fist of, the only major Medical facility thats operating at a profit now is Kaiser. The staff is way uinderpaid because government, Insurance and other factors prevent them to giving people reasonable raise. Only recently in California, did the nurses start getting paid a reasonable rate. The main reason medicine cost is increasing more than other industries is because Hospital is limited to how much they can outsource. The cost of other industry is not rising at the same rate because in those industries, good hardworking Americans are fired so they could move the jobs to third world countries. I see all the cost cutting do to fear of Clintons health plan and guess what. When CLinton became President, Nosocomial deaths(Hospital cause deaths) increased. It was because when they were preparing for National health care they cut a lot of jobs. These jobs were there to make sure no mistakes were made.
I have relatives in Canada. Their health care sucks. Yes they acn see the Doctors for petty stuff, but when something serious happens they get aspirin and won't see a doctor for a month. I said for SOMETHING SERIOUS.
You get what you pay for. Yes there is waste and always willbe , but its difficult to do anything. Giving Health care to the government won't decrease waste. It increases waste and corruption. Look at Walter Reed hospital. Look at the VA hospitals. Do you see the government doing a good job in running health care.
2007-04-10 19:41:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I don't know that there is one. Something has to be done, so that health care can be affordable to everyone, and the health care system must not be profit driven. Cobra was touted as a solution for insurance coverage for people who have been laid off, and are no longer on their company insurance. But, Cobra has always been nothing but a sick joke. It has never been affordable except to the upper middle class and the wealthy, and they don't need it anyway. *sm*
2007-04-11 00:44:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by LadyZania 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hi I'm a Britt and we have the national health service (NHS) as you probably know. In the UK our government is pouring billions into it too keep it going and it's still in a poor state what with waiting lists,lack of beds,wards,hospital based infections,incompetent staff and lack of ambulances.
But I would say that the main problem facing all Western nations health care is the large percentage of their ageing populations requiring more and more expensive and complicated operations.
So I would say health care will just get more and more expensive no matter what we do.
Yes in the UK we also have to book a doctor two weeks in advance. So you will either be dead or better by the time you see him or her.
2007-04-10 19:48:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by simo9352 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
This is a rich question coming from a liberal hypocrite businessman who just wants to increase his own bottom line by having the taxpayers foot the bill for his employees coverage rather than him.
I've witnessed first hand doctors ceasing practice due to Medical Malpractice insurance costs skyrocketing. That's directly related to tort cases - against other doctors. It's a fact, but you just call people selfish instead of looking at the burdens on PROVIDERS.
You've provided no evidence here to support UHC. I do believe some coverage system should be provided to cover people who seek coverage, without forcing people who don't want to buy it from doing so.
I also believe that fair market competition generally lowers costs. I can just imagine the wonderful efficiency with which our government operates certain departments (why on earth it takes nearly a year to get an adoption birth certificate is beyond me), so I can only imagine just how bad a government run system would be here.
The only 'conscience' you have is how to pay out less in expenses in your business. Hypocrite.
2007-04-10 19:39:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by MoltarRocks 7
·
4⤊
5⤋
My biggest fear regarding a national health care system is that it will be labeled as another "entitlement" by the Republicans and will be underfunded and cut back until it's a disaster. They say it cannot work and they will make sure it doesn't.
2007-04-11 00:12:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I work with sped students linking them up to Vocational Rehabilitation. I often have to escort them to their psych appointments, done at state run clinics. No thanks.
As to fix the problem, caps on malpractice lawsuits is a start, fear of being sued is one of the main causes for cost of health care. Some are legit, but more than not just brought on by lawyers and sue happy, frivelous people.
2007-04-10 19:47:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Χαλαρά 7
·
1⤊
2⤋