I certainly don't blame an INSURANCE company for not wanting to insure someone after they are sick, or even after showing by the meds they take an increased likelihood of getting sick. They're an INSURANCE company, and the way INSURANCE companies work is that folks who aren't sick and are never going to get sick ARE SUPPOSED TO pay the same amount as the folks who do get sick.
That said, we need single-payer
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_payer.phpWhat is Single Payer?Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different health care organizations—HMOs, billing agencies, etc. By having so many different payers of health care fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated in the system. (Just imagine how complex billing must be in a doctor’s office, when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers—it’s very confusing.) In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.
Access and Benefits
All Americans would receive comprehensive medical benefits under single payer. Coverage would include all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental health care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures.
Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay.
PaymentHospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.
Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service, salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society) and a state payment board. In most cases, government would serve as administrator, not employer.
FinancingThe program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. Employers would pay a 7.0 percent payroll tax and employees would pay 2.0 percent, essentially converting premium payments to a health care payroll tax. 90 to 95 percent of people would pay less overall for health care. Financing includes a $2 per pack cigarette tax.
Administrative SavingsThe General Accounting Office projects an administrative savings of 10 percent through the elimination of private insurance bills and administrative waste, or $150 billion in 2002. This savings would pay for providing medical care to those currently underserved.
Cost ContainmentThe Congressional Budget Office projects that single payer would reduce overall health costs by $225 billion by 2004 despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans. No other plan projects this kind of savings.
Different Perspectives on the Benefits of Single-Payer
PatientsEach person, regardless of ability to pay would receive high-quality, comprehensive medical care, and the free choice of doctors and hospitals. Individuals would receive no bills, and copayment and deductibles would be eliminated. Most people would pay less overall for health care than they pay now.
DoctorsDoctors’ incomes would change little, though the disparity in income between specialties would shrink. The need for a “wallet biopsy” before treatment would be eliminated; time currently wasted on administrative duties could be channeled into providing care; and clinical decisions would no longer be dictated by insurance company policy.
Medical endorsements include PNHP (9,000), the American Public Health Association (30,000), American Association of Community Psychiatrists, Massachusetts Academy of Family Practice, American Medical Women’s Association (13,500), Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Society, American Medical Student’s Association, D.C. Medical Society, National Medical Association (6,500), American College of Physicians (Illinois Chapter), Long Island Dermatological Society, Islamic Medical Association, American Nurses Association, the Nurses’ Network for a National Health Program, and the D.C. chapter of the American Medical Association.
HospitalsThe massive numbers of administrative personnel needed to handle itemized billing to 1,500 private insurance companies would no longer be needed. A negotiated “global budget” would cover operating expenses. Budgets for capital would be allocated separately based on health care priorities. Hospitals would no longer close because of unpaid bills.
Insurance IndustryThe need for private insurance would be eliminated. One single payer bill currently in the House (H.R. 1200) would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.
BusinessIn general, businesses would see Single Payer limit their health costs and remove the burden of administering health insurance for their employees.
CongressSingle payer would be the simplest and most efficient health care plan that Congress could implement.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
