Obama and EMS - the roll-on effect of universal health care

[bonedog]

Excellent counter wxduff, you get it.

I understand 10X the research funds for breast cancer is spent on male pattern baldness, another thing that might change if alturistic individual's were in charge of where the research dollars go.

Oh yeah and congrat's on the new president elect, he seems much more intelligent than his predecessor.

 

[Ridryder911]

Either afford healthcare or the inability to pay taxes to fund it.

R/r 911

 

[Sasha]

And seriously, WHAT GOOD IS ALL THIS MEDICAL RESEARCH IN THE U.S IF SO FEW AMERICAN'S CAN EVEN AFFORD IT.

Amen, brother! <3

 

[EMERG2011]

Speaking as someone who has worked both in EMS as well as on both the Clinton and Obama campaigns - the type of national healthcare system being proposed (and soon implemented) by the Obama administration isn't a single payer healthcare system a.la Canada or Scandanavia, but rather a universal system of health insurance. Its projected that by providing the 47 million American citizens with comprehensive health insurance overall health costs will go down, hospital overcrowding will decrease, and the incidence of preventable disease will decrese. Furthermore, because more people will have access to healthcare, WE wont have to pick them up and take them to the hospital because they had (insert disease/malady here) for the past week/month/year and cant go see a PCP because of a lack of insurance.

Essentially - in the end, we all win.

 

[firecoins]

Speaking as someone who has worked both in EMS as well as on both the Clinton and Obama campaigns
Essentially - in the end, we all win. Essentially - in the end, we all win.

That sounds nice. The promises made by politicians of previous social programs were usually much greater than the actual results. We will get stuck with something that falls way short of the promises plus the higher taxes to pay for it. The politicans will refuse to fix the program or cut it. We get stuck with whatever problems it creates without the promised benefits.

 

[EMERG2011]

One more thing -

Most major medical breakthroughs have been dependent on money from the Federal government (think: pcn, MRI, CT, AZT). While private pharma does play a major role in drug/treatment protocol development, federal funding is the cornerstone of modern research.

PS - The Obama plan doesnt take any money away from the Pharma companies, all it does is ensure that individual consumers have full access to the drugs. If anything, Pharma would see a RISE in profits because of this plan.

 

[Ridryder911]

Speaking as someone who has worked both in EMS as well as on both the Clinton and Obama campaigns - the type of national healthcare system being proposed (and soon implemented) by the Obama administration isn't a single payer healthcare system a.la Canada or Scandanavia, but rather a universal system of health insurance. Its projected that by providing the 47 million American citizens with comprehensive health insurance overall health costs will go down, hospital overcrowding will decrease, and the incidence of preventable disease will decrese. Furthermore, because more people will have access to healthcare, WE wont have to pick them up and take them to the hospital because they had (insert disease/malady here) for the past week/month/year and cant go see a PCP because of a lack of insurance.

Essentially - in the end, we all win.

If you believe that crap, I have some lovely land I will sell you and a 88 Ford only drove by my Grandma on Sundays.

I too was active during President Hillary and her V.P. Bill. Thank - GOD that it never went through. One of the only few times I donated to a PAC and supported AMA.

Investigate the B.S. on what and how reimbursements are made As well, tell me the last time you actually saw someone denied health care? Sorry, I see a lot of freeby healthcare and NO it does not encourage them for preventative care and NO it has not yet reduced EMS responses. Really, everyone with a health card and no one will be able to know if they are covered or not... yeah, I see physicians jumping on board that.

What it can and will reduce is reimbursement rates for all health care (i.e EMS) as well as reduction in reimbursements to speciality (i.e. neurology, etc) areas and then we will see those specialties only accept private or insurance covered patients. Don't think so? Look at how many are already abandoning Medicare and Medicaid. As well, read AMA and the AOA statements. Do you think a physician will accept the nominal payment of government captivated rates? Dream on...

Again, there is NO easy answer and again someone will have to pay for it one way or another. Unfortunately, many assume the government is the answer.

 

[rhan101277]

Whatever can get EMS more money to get better equipment and training for more life saving interventions is good for me. Is it a far stretch for paramedics to be able to do chest tubes? I know they can do the little needles but it really doesn't let out much blood.

But free healthcare for everyone sounds good, but I bet it comes at a cost of higher taxes. I like Obama's social security package, I think he was going to eliminate lower/middle class giving into it and upper class paying more. I think he defined upper class as 250K plus.

 

[wxduff]

If you believe that crap, I have some lovely land I will sell you and a 88 Ford only drove by my Grandma on Sundays.

I too was active during President Hillary and her V.P. Bill. Thank - GOD that it never went through. One of the only few times I donated to a PAC and supported AMA.

Investigate the B.S. on what and how reimbursements are made As well, tell me the last time you actually saw someone denied health care? Sorry, I see a lot of freeby healthcare and NO it does not encourage them for preventative care and NO it has not yet reduced EMS responses. Really, everyone with a health card and no one will be able to know if they are covered or not... yeah, I see physicians jumping on board that.

What it can and will reduce is reimbursement rates for all health care (i.e EMS) as well as reduction in reimbursements to speciality (i.e. neurology, etc) areas and then we will see those specialties only accept private or insurance covered patients. Don't think so? Look at how many are already abandoning Medicare and Medicaid. As well, read AMA and the AOA statements. Do you think a physician will accept the nominal payment of government captivated rates? Dream on...

Again, there is NO easy answer and again someone will have to pay for it one way or another. Unfortunately, many assume the government is the answer.

So if were under a national health care plan, doctors will start only taking privately insured patients? That sir is complete bull. They would make more money from people now going to the doctor instead.

I don't understand your logic, but it's broken, and the obvious doesn't seem to sink in .

Insurance for all will raise patient numbers for doctors and other medical fields. They will still get competitive pay due to increased demand. That's a no brain-er. Some of these organizations are against universal health care because they are funded by HMOs. Obviously HMOs are against universal healthcare, because they can't RAPE anyone anymore. THEY are the ones that will pay, and they deserve it after they have raped private consumers and small business for years. Universal Healthcare will be cheaper than an equal plan through an HMO any day. Universal Healthcare eliminates the 31% of healthcare spending to profit, the 350 billion dollars in paperwork, administrative costs, and elevates the level of care for everyone.

Everyone wins, and that's not a fantasy, it's reality, and its already been proved in other parts of the world.

If Obama goes through with a universal healthcare system, the people of this country as well as this country's medical industry will see a rise in efficiency, affordability, and fairness.

 

[JPINFV]

If Obama goes through with a universal healthcare system, the people of this country as well as this country's medical industry will see a rise in efficiency, affordability, and fairness.

Just like all the other countries? So tell me, then, in the magical socialized health care world, why is it that England is finding it hard to find dentists willing to treat patients after the dentist has met their patient quota? Why are the lines for surgeries so long in Canada that there are Canadians willing to private pay to come to the US for their surgery?

Personally, if it came down to getting an "elective" quality of life surgery (like hip replacement) quickly (as in not waiting several years) or having my life expectancy increase by 2 years (which would move the US from 30th in life expectancy to 11th in life expectancy and place the US within a year life expectancy of 3rd place to show how tight the field is at this level), I'd rather live a shorter, fuller life than a longer, lower quality life.

 

[Ridryder911]

Many speciality physicians have went to private pay and insurance only. Evaluate the number of neurosurgeons that nowno longer work in trauma centers or in fact take non-insured trauma patients. Don't believe me look at trauma center rotations and diverts.

In my state nearly all the neuros banded together and formed their own hospital and NO they do NOT nor will they participate in trauma care.. Why? Poor reimbursement rates.

I am not in favor of HMO's nor PPO's but I am realist. I DO know how things are reimbursed and not. I DO know that any reimbursement rate will not fulfill the pay structure for speciality physicians and YES they will quit seeing patients that are government insured. Just alike many obstetrics has as well.

Don't know what how it is in your part but even ACoS even discussed the dilemma of trauma care and possibility outcome. Now, I have seen speciality hospitals in cardiac care do the same.. no private insurance, no admittance.

Like I said, I have seen this before nothing new and alike I said those that income are based upon high reimbursement rates have the highest lobbyist groups. Nor matter or whom is in office, it won't change.

R/r 911

 

[EMERG2011]

If you believe that crap, I have some lovely land I will sell you and a 88 Ford only drove by my Grandma on Sundays.

While I am always glad to be on the recieving end of a verbal bear baiting, I do have to point out that the Obama plan is HARDLY HillaryCare. HillaryCare 1.0 would have been a true national one-payer system of federal health insurance. This plan is a multi-payer system, wherein the American people will be given access to health insurance plans that are already in existance, and proven to be both effective for the patients and care providers across the board.

Example: Say you're a 50 YOM with pre-existing cardiac disease, and a strong family history of Alzheimers. In the current system, few if any health insurance companies would take you on, because the actuarial tables would say that you were too great a risk. Under this plan, if you are able to pay your premiums and copays, the insurance company would have to take you on. Furthermore, if you cant find a plan to your liking, you would be able to buy into the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHB). The FEHB itself is not a singular plan, but rather an organization of government sub-contractors (i.e. Blue Cross/Blue Shield), which provide full coverage at discounted rates. The FEHB is available in all 50 states, as well as overseas. Under the FEHB, the 50YOM would pay an average of $300 a month to cover dental, drugs, doctor visits, hospital visits, surgeries, etc. Such a plan under another provider could be in excess of $1000 a month.

 

[GeekMedic]

Isn't the goal equal access?

Neither the US system or the Canadian system are perfect, up here we have crazy wait times to see a specialist or have a procedure done. (faster if your life depends on it), Down there it appears to me people are avoiding going the their GP for a minor ailment due to the perceived or real cost, and waiting until they get worse, resulting in a trip to the ED and a significantly larger bill.

FYI in Canada we do have to pay out of pocket for for meds, optometrists, dentists, and 'non medically necessary procedures' non of wich come cheap despite the cap that the gov't has on prescription meds.

 

[wxduff]

Many speciality physicians have went to private pay and insurance only. Evaluate the number of neurosurgeons that nowno longer work in trauma centers or in fact take non-insured trauma patients. Don't believe me look at trauma center rotations and diverts.

In my state nearly all the neuros banded together and formed their own hospital and NO they do NOT nor will they participate in trauma care.. Why? Poor reimbursement rates.

I am not in favor of HMO's nor PPO's but I am realist. I DO know how things are reimbursed and not. I DO know that any reimbursement rate will not fulfill the pay structure for speciality physicians and YES they will quit seeing patients that are government insured. Just alike many obstetrics has as well.

Don't know what how it is in your part but even ACoS even discussed the dilemma of trauma care and possibility outcome. Now, I have seen speciality hospitals in cardiac care do the same.. no private insurance, no admittance.

Like I said, I have seen this before nothing new and alike I said those that income are based upon high reimbursement rates have the highest lobbyist groups. Nor matter or whom is in office, it won't change.

R/r 911

Rid, my simple point is, if America goes to a Universal Healthcare system, they wont deny universal healthcare patients, because we will ALL be universal healthcare patients, except for the very wealthy and the stubborn. Not accepting these patients is like putting a gun to your career's head.

So you can stop pushing the point, it's bad logic, again...

 

[Melbourne MICA]

Just a counter argument, I'm sure we can make up for the loss of research funding by funding research as a nation.

When John Doe pays for their HMO you realize that 31% of what they pay is pure profits, after all costs like workers salaries, paperwork, and costs of procedures and other health care?

And a Universal Health care system could eliminate up to 350 billion dollars in paper?

Between the two of those I think it's safe to assume the following:
1. Everyone can get good, solid, affordable coverage.
2. An increase in the demand for medical services would allow for job creation in the medical field, including EMS.
3. We could still afford to fund research.
4. No-one would have to be in fear of being dropped by their provider when they get really sick. No fine print, you're covered.

I'm sorry but some things don't work when run for profit. The world health organization ranked America 37th in the world as a health care system, right below COSTA RICA and DOMINICA. I mean seriously... The worlds economic super power, yet #37 in health care?

And you're list is nice Rid, but every other country on that list has a better healthcare system then us, and I'd rather have theirs.

Healthcare research is not going to disappear if we get Universal Healthcare, instead its going to be run by people doing it because they care, instead of profit. And seriously, WHAT GOOD IS ALL THIS MEDICAL RESEARCH IN THE U.S IF SO FEW AMERICAN'S CAN EVEN AFFORD IT.

Well put WXDUFF

The same arguments about private sector markets being self regulatory led to the current financial debacle, and the same private system at work unrestrained has America No 37 and 47 million of its own citizens left in the lurch.

A balance of private capital and investment plus a public competitor in the market place with a regulatory system that makes all the players accountable to the same common goal - real health care for everyone - is the way to go in my book.

Private sector self regulation and "market forces" - that intangible non-corporeal entity beholden to no-one but the concept of a bottom line - read shareholder greed factor - is a beast with no reigns keeping it in check.

"Temptation", that lovely old biblical term is what drives the mindset of the private players. They can't help it. It's in human nature. When the private sector is faced with providing service or taking the money and running when someone smells big dollars do we honestly think they will "do the right thing" and take a smaller share of the profits for the sake of their role as "good corporate citizens"?

Not on your life. And history has proved this time and again, most recently of course with the current financial melt down.

When the private sector bemoans the involvement of the government in their market it's usually because they will have to play fair. Like the utilities and energy sectors (remember the fraud and market manipulation that occurred in the Californian energy sector and the huge power outages that resulted?) - the standard mantra is that the public system can't run these things efficiently, service will suffer and costs blow out.

This is a whole lot of guff. But that's a debate for another kind of forum.

If "socialization" of health care as others have put it means the system is run more in line with the perceptions of the public about what they should rightfully expect from society and tax dollar outlays then I'm all for it.

The reliable old workhorse of the public sector plus the thoroughbred of private industry with rider attached holding the reigns.

MM

PS Obama's extraordinary victory is a milestone in the American body politic.
The rest of the world seems to think it is a damn mighty fine thing. I hope it works out that way for you guys in the US. Best of luck.

 

[ffemt8978]

If "socialization" of health care as others have put it means the system is run more in line with the perceptions of the public about what they should rightfully expect from society and tax dollar outlays then I'm all for it.

I'm curious where this belief that society or the government owes anyone healthcare. Last time I checked, healthcare is not one of the things listed in the Constitution.

 

[Melbourne MICA]

I'm curious where this belief that society or the government owes anyone healthcare. Last time I checked, healthcare is not one of the things listed in the Constitution.

I don't know - Perhaps it should be.

Given the US constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 it is hardly surprising that there was no ideological premise underlying the provision of health care for all citizens written into it. Its omission may well have reflected the views of Jefferson etal but I don't believe so. Nonetheless the conceptual basis for a health care "system" IE an organised and widespread delivery model still arose out of the public domain.

Prior to this those with nominal incomes or the poor and destitute relied heavily on the altruism of the medical professions of the day. Even then you could guarantee there were no poor people with their own "physician" and access to advanced medical procedures was all but non-existent.

Indeed the poor and powerless of the underclasses were often the guinea pigs of medical research. Further they were often blamed for the rise of epidemics.

Their squalid living conditions. lack of sanitation and hygiene, poor education and access to basic health care provision helped to cement their place on the lower rungs of society.

Given the lessons learned at the time of the value of widespread health care both in human and economic costs it remains surprising that the concept didn't gain traction across all ideological spectrum's. Given the largely agrarian and trade goods economies of the day, the pandemics of the 15th through 18th centuries decimated the very workers relied upon by the merchant and upper classes to maintain their businesses and incomes. The flow on effect for nations was often economic catastrophe.

Even today we have medical catastrophes with enormous economic consequences. Flu pandemics, even widespread outbreaks of seemingly trivial medical problems like gastro can shut down businesses and produce millions of lost man hours at workplaces. The dollar cost can be felt at local, regional or even national levels.

I would think that lifting the bottom line of health care both in terms of scope and in the level of dissemination does more than just make a poor person feel more a like a rich one because they can get a heart transplant too.

The flow on effects are to both the economy and the social fabric of the population.

It's a trite argument, typically shovelled out by the political right, that the idea of "universal health care" is some evil contrivance of the "socialists" (read communists - I wish people would just apply the tag that they really mean but don't actually understand) with the next step being chanting political mantras each day and seeing all of us wearing olive drab overshirts whilst plowing the fields singing dogmatic anthems.

It isn't. It makes sense in every respect. Plenty of countries have tried it irrespective of the incumbent governments ideological position (though more common to the left of centre of course). Some have met with mixed results others with great success.

The problems typically lie with efficient implementation but this belies the veracity of the concept. But they also lie in the corporate mindset. To my way of thinking, the evidence doesn't seem to reflect much in the way of "social responsibility" being demonstrated by corporate anybody (not just corporate America by the way). Look what the big pharmaceuticals tried to do to stop generic aids meds in Asia and Africa.

Individual effort, entrepreneurialism, reaching for the stars - all good stuff. But resistance from the private sector ( because they feel threatened - or more correctly they don't want their profits "shared around") has ridden on the back of American ideals like those mentioned for too long.

I don't know that that's what your forefathers exactly had in mind when they wrote the constitution whether they included a section on "universal" health care as a right or not. Maybe the "Life" part of ..."life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was a broader and more complex metaphor than we realise.

Anything "collective" or universal" doesn't have to be a threat to the foundation principles of the American heart and mind.

All societies evolve. Perhaps with Obama you will see the beginning of a new paradigm in the way americans feel and think about many things including health care. Perhaps in a few years many an American family will breathe a sigh of relief and find comfort in knowing that their fellow Americans (through the government) are not only watching their backs (security) but watching their health as well.

Time will tell I guess. Here hoping.

MM

 

[ffemt8978]

To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'"

It's long past time we stop looking to the government to take care of us and instead take responsibility for our own selves. After all, all men are created equal does not mean that all men will end up as equals. Life is what you make of it.

 

[EMERG2011]

To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'"

It's long past time we stop looking to the government to take care of us and instead take responsibility for our own selves. After all, all men are created equal does not mean that all men will end up as equals. Life is what you make of it.

While in basic prinicpal I agree with you, I have to point out that your assertion, and the assertion made by the late President Reagan is based on the assumption that everyone is given an equal shot at birth. While it is an unfortunate reality, a baby girl born in Appalachia does not have the same opportunities as a baby girl born in suburban Maryland. The role of government in this situation is to raise up the downtrodden so that there is a truly level playing field. Its one thing for us to be talking about government intervention with homes to keep us warm at night, and internet to keep us connected to the world; and its another thing entirely when a sick woman in Southeast Washington DC who cant afford to heat her crumbling home talks about paying either her medical bills or her electricity bill. While you personally may not agree with the new system, sometimes government DOES have to step in, and ensure not just the survival, but the blessings of freedom and living in the nation with the best, most advanced healthcare systems in history are endowed upon everyone.

 

[Ridryder911]

Why is it my fault you do not have the money or work for an employer that does not provide health care insurance? Why should I have to work an additional job and make sacrifices?

I do realize there is the needy and those that need a hand up and NOT a hand out. Unfortunately, giving people what they need has never nor ever worked. The " Great Society" is the worse thing that ever occurred. We have made people dependent upon others to "provide" for them.

There is programs that will provide preventative medicine, but unfortunately this is NOT what the society wants. They much rather go to a ED to be treated because why? It's faster and there is no payment required!

I have worked IHS hospitals where there is free preventive and even free medicine and care and majority was non-compliant. Free health care, free medicine, even a paid van or ambulance to transport and still will bombard the ED.

I have triaged patients to the clinic because their condition was not warranted as "life threatening" yet, they refused to go because: 1) They would have wait to be seen by the PCP (even though they had an appointment for that day) 2) The PCP can actually charge (nominal) fee.

I will be all for governmental free health care as soon as :

They have to ensure no bad habits or deterrents such as smoking, alcohol or substance abuse is causing or affecting the outcome of the disease process.

They are placed on a limited time schedule. Unless a catastrophic illness then one should only be allowed so much.

I am sure the ideas are well intention but realistic it is not. Remember, where Obama was an attorney for.. Revco.

R/r 911