Health safekeeping or strength insurance which would you prefer?
This is a simple analogy for those who don't understand the difference
Health Care : Health Insurance
Car: Car Insurance
Basically, health supervision is the hospital and the doctors and nurses and pharmacists and drugs in the hospital which help to cure your illnesses. Health Insurance is from a third entertainment which pays for some or all of the cost of the health carefulness while trying to make a profit. H.I. companies have the power of the purse which give them the power to deny medication or treatments if they cost more than the patient pays.
For the purpose of this question it must be standard that the health care system within the United States must be changed. So, is it better to have hospitals that are run by the government and remunerated for out of everyone's taxes to provide adequate care for adjectives patients or health insurance where hospitals are businesses and must still net some profit using an insurance fund which must be shared by everyone?
Answers:
The answer will be a two tiered system. Gov't managed Hospitals will be more effective at managing costs than the tug o time of war between Insurance companies and health care providers. As it is insurance companies are other billed the max possible for everything because that's the way it's played to make up for inhabitants with bad or little insurance. Incentives will change in a fully covered hospital.
Then people next to enough money can still have insurance and private clinics. Basically what have to stop though is the 1500 dollar bill for an ER visit or 1000 plus for an ambulance ride. Costs are ridiculous.
There isn't enough money on the planet for it to begin near.
That's a false choice--there is a third resort which is the way things used to be done: health charge was affordable enough that society got what they needed and only if nearby were a catastrophic event did they NEED insurance. THAT is the best way.
A plan that would net that comeback possible is here:
QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for adjectives.
That means preventative care (physical next to follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No rough up of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcy over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden bad employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which have been repeatedly documented).
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm…
Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World
UHC does NOT work.
World:
...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day have nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public strength care, having open his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenge the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can find a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and contained by which humans can wait two to three years.”
And now even Canadian government are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for workers of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where on earth fealty to socialized medicine has other been strong, the government not long hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care date back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now clearly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, just this minute said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided something like 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least possible one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary supervision services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden’s government, after the completion of the hottest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the drip of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reform have begun within Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain beneath state control). It’s important to note that transformation in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States be once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health meticulousness as essential, it is so no longer."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca…
US:
"California Senate Panel Rejects Health Coverage Proposal
JESSE MCKINLEY AND KEVIN SACK
SAN FRANCISCO — In a blow to universal health protection coverage in California and possibly to its prospects nationwide, a State Senate committee on Monday rejected a sweeping plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would own offered insurance to millions of uninsured residents.
The Senate Health Committee defeated the plan 7 to 1, with three abstentions, as Democrats and Republicans alike said they found it too nebulous and potentially too costly for a state facing a $14.5 billion deficit.
“This bill is not solely not perfect, it is flawed,” said State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, Democrat of Los Angeles and chairwoman of the committee, who voted against it.
...
But last Wednesday, as the California Senate committee hear testimony on the bill, Massachusetts announced that spending on its health thought plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers.
Shortly after the vote, Assemblyman Michael N. Villines of Fresno, the chamber’s Republican leader, praised it as a rejection of “a massive government-run condition care scheme.”
On the Democratic side, in attendance were concerns about the so-called “individual mandate,” which would own required all Californians to carry and reimburse for insurance, except those in economic hard times...."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200…
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
Also note:
"L.A. County may close most of its clinics
Facing a deficit, health official want to pay private centers to take up the
slack. Critics right to be heard the plan's logic is faulty. "
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition…
ll.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Also note the info re: Taxachusetts and their increase of $400 million for 6.5 million residents after Mitt did his Hillarycare for MA:
"Massachusetts announced that spending on its robustness care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers. "
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200…
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
yes that's what i want,.....a hospital run like the, "Dept Of Motor Vehicles",.....remember the $600 dollar hammer and things, found out about years ago??,.....do you really thing Government can do it cheaper??,.....
You make a good shield for government healthcare....except when has the affairs of state EVER given us a domestic program that is actually all right. Just one will do really.
Related Questions:
Health Care : Health Insurance
Car: Car Insurance
Basically, health supervision is the hospital and the doctors and nurses and pharmacists and drugs in the hospital which help to cure your illnesses. Health Insurance is from a third entertainment which pays for some or all of the cost of the health carefulness while trying to make a profit. H.I. companies have the power of the purse which give them the power to deny medication or treatments if they cost more than the patient pays.
For the purpose of this question it must be standard that the health care system within the United States must be changed. So, is it better to have hospitals that are run by the government and remunerated for out of everyone's taxes to provide adequate care for adjectives patients or health insurance where hospitals are businesses and must still net some profit using an insurance fund which must be shared by everyone?
Answers:
The answer will be a two tiered system. Gov't managed Hospitals will be more effective at managing costs than the tug o time of war between Insurance companies and health care providers. As it is insurance companies are other billed the max possible for everything because that's the way it's played to make up for inhabitants with bad or little insurance. Incentives will change in a fully covered hospital.
Then people next to enough money can still have insurance and private clinics. Basically what have to stop though is the 1500 dollar bill for an ER visit or 1000 plus for an ambulance ride. Costs are ridiculous.
There isn't enough money on the planet for it to begin near.
That's a false choice--there is a third resort which is the way things used to be done: health charge was affordable enough that society got what they needed and only if nearby were a catastrophic event did they NEED insurance. THAT is the best way.
A plan that would net that comeback possible is here:
QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for adjectives.
That means preventative care (physical next to follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No rough up of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcy over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden bad employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which have been repeatedly documented).
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm…
Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World
UHC does NOT work.
World:
...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day have nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public strength care, having open his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenge the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can find a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and contained by which humans can wait two to three years.”
And now even Canadian government are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for workers of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where on earth fealty to socialized medicine has other been strong, the government not long hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care date back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now clearly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, just this minute said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided something like 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least possible one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary supervision services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden’s government, after the completion of the hottest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the drip of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reform have begun within Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain beneath state control). It’s important to note that transformation in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States be once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health meticulousness as essential, it is so no longer."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca…
US:
"California Senate Panel Rejects Health Coverage Proposal
JESSE MCKINLEY AND KEVIN SACK
SAN FRANCISCO — In a blow to universal health protection coverage in California and possibly to its prospects nationwide, a State Senate committee on Monday rejected a sweeping plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would own offered insurance to millions of uninsured residents.
The Senate Health Committee defeated the plan 7 to 1, with three abstentions, as Democrats and Republicans alike said they found it too nebulous and potentially too costly for a state facing a $14.5 billion deficit.
“This bill is not solely not perfect, it is flawed,” said State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, Democrat of Los Angeles and chairwoman of the committee, who voted against it.
...
But last Wednesday, as the California Senate committee hear testimony on the bill, Massachusetts announced that spending on its health thought plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers.
Shortly after the vote, Assemblyman Michael N. Villines of Fresno, the chamber’s Republican leader, praised it as a rejection of “a massive government-run condition care scheme.”
On the Democratic side, in attendance were concerns about the so-called “individual mandate,” which would own required all Californians to carry and reimburse for insurance, except those in economic hard times...."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200…
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
Also note:
"L.A. County may close most of its clinics
Facing a deficit, health official want to pay private centers to take up the
slack. Critics right to be heard the plan's logic is faulty. "
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition…
ll.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Also note the info re: Taxachusetts and their increase of $400 million for 6.5 million residents after Mitt did his Hillarycare for MA:
"Massachusetts announced that spending on its robustness care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers. "
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200…
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
yes that's what i want,.....a hospital run like the, "Dept Of Motor Vehicles",.....remember the $600 dollar hammer and things, found out about years ago??,.....do you really thing Government can do it cheaper??,.....
You make a good shield for government healthcare....except when has the affairs of state EVER given us a domestic program that is actually all right. Just one will do really.
Related Questions:
- Help i obligation affordable form insurance for my college student daughter within texas?
- Do u own to be married to take vigour insurance to haveababy?
- Is it possible to receive psychiatric therapy short condition insurance?
- Can my girlfriend put me on her form insurance?
- Where can I purchase hydrocodone bt-ibuprofen in need a prescription or robustness insurance?