Health Care Articles

Is universal health care politically feasible in the U.S.?

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

We may be inching toward the day, but the American people are not yet convinced of the need for universal health care. President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, and Congress’ unwillingness to override that veto gives signals we should consider.

Consider that we have not yet elected leaders who will extend health care coverage to all CHILDREN. How can we ever expect them to extend health care coverage to EVERYONE!? The American people are not yet ready to create a “Nanny State” where the government takes responsibility for providing health care away from the parents.

Consider that most people receive their health care coverage through job-based plans for which they never see a bill. On plus side for universal health care advocates, this creates the illusion that health care coverage is no-cost “perk.” It simply remains to transfer the provider from the employer to the government. However, working against the idea of universal health care is the fact that most people are already covered and see no reason to change what is working reasonably well.

Consider that everyone who needs urgent care can already get it. By law, if someone goes to an emergency room for treatment they must receive it. There simply are not vast numbers of people in this country who are cannot get health care when it is needed. The aftermath of widespread, Depression-era joblessness prompted Congress to enact Social Security. It will take a similar kind of systemic breakdown to convince them to enact some means of universal health care.

Consider that even though people moan about health care costs, they are not unhappy with health care quality. By and large, when we visit the doctor or go into the hospital for treatment, we are cared for by well-trained, highly skilled, medical professionals. And even when we are not quite satisfied there is always doctor from whom we can get a second opinion.

No, I do not think we are ready for universal health care. Frankly, it doesn’t seem broke enough to fix it.

Health care is increasingly expensive in the United States, is it time to adopt European style universal health care? – Part 2

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

No! Going to a socialized medical system like they have in Europe will decrease the availability of health care and reduce the quality.

We cannot succumb to this entitlement mentality that says everything is a ‘right.’ This view of the world is why so many of the rich Europeans and Canadians come to the US for cancer treatment and major surgeries. In fact, earlier this year a high-ranking member of the Canadian government, on the advice of her doctor, went to California to have surgery for her breast cancer. Why? Because the waiting time in Canada is much too long. By the time she’d get the necessary surgery under the socialized system, the cancer might be too far along to be dealt with effectively.

This shows how socialized medicine can kill you. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend the recent John Stossel ABC News special titled Whose Body is it Anyway. Stossel does an excellent job in showing the flaws in socialized medicine. One of those flaws is that it puts the government in charge of who gets health care and what kind of quality it will be. An example of this happened to a man in England, who had a broken ankle but was refused treatment because he was a smoker.

Whether you smoke or not, that scenario should terrify you. What’s next, denying treatment to those who are obese? How about denying medical care to those who are elderly, since they won’t be alive much longer anyway? These scenarios are very much like Nazi Germany in the 1930s, where disabled veterans, the crippled and the elderly were deemed less than desirable and were denied medical care and, in some cases, euthanized because they strained the limited resources of government medical care.

We can lower the cost of health care by passing House Resolution 3509, introduced by physician and Texas congressman Michael Burgess. It would cap non-economic malpractice damages that have driven up medical care costs over the past few decades. This bill is based on the highly-successful Proposition 12 amendment to the Texas constitution that voters passed a few years ago. While personal injury lawyers hate it, it has resulted in lower malpractice insurance premiums and more doctors returning to Texas to practice medicine.

Another way to lower health care costs is to get patients and health care providers more involved in understanding the real costs of medical care. In an example in Stossel’s program, one small town doctor now refuses to accept health insurance. He provides a list of services and their corresponding prices and the patients pay him directly. As a small businessman, this is smart because he has reduced his overhead by eliminating the paperocracy of insurance forms and all the hassles that go with it.

This is where health savings accounts also help to lower costs because small items, like colds and sprained ankles would be paid for by the patient out of the savings account while major procedures like cancer treatment would covered by the patient’s insurance plan.

To sum up, the way to lower health care costs is to reduce frivolous lawsuits, lower health care administrative costs and get patients and doctors more directly involved in the payment and cost of health care.

Health care is increasingly expensive in the United States, is it time to adopt European style universal health care? – Part 1

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Universal health care is also known as socialized medicine, it is the availability of inexpensive medical services for all citizens, regardless of income, funded by taxpayers. Universal health care has been made out to be a negative thing since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. According to Pulitzer Prize winning author Laurie Garrett in her book “Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health”, the American Medical Association (AMA) coined the term “socialized medicine” in the 1930s to scare voters into believing that health care for all would be socialist, much like the terminology thrown around in the most recent U.S. election. Socialism invokes images of Stalin and Marx and communism, the antithesis of democracy and the freedom to do as one wishes with their own money, but federal taxes and social programs are already socialistic principles in the democratic society.

The AMA did not want to risk the government and public stunting the inflation of doctors’ fees that had occurred since FDR’s policies began pulling Americans out of the depression. Instead, the government programs Medicare and Medicaid were legislated and formed, and the AMA and doctors began overbilling the government and the inflation of their fees increased exponentially.

President Truman also attempted to bring universal health care to the country, and the AMA fought him, too. Then President Nixon tried it again, but his Watergate scandal interrupted his political agenda, and the insurance companies joined with the AMA to fight, too. By this point, an entire new industry was benefiting from the lack of available and inexpensive American health care.

The AMA has been able to step back from the fray due to the insurance lobbyists fighting for inflated rates and decreased services of their own, keeping universal health care out of the reach of Americans. This has resulted in disease outbreaks from lack of immunization, which currently includes whooping cough, the collapse of public health, including hospital acquired antibiotic resistant bacterial infections and treatment resistant tuberculosis, and a loss of income to those who do have health care, with a self-employed woman in the rural Northeast United States having to pay $700 per month for a policy that includes maternity care but not well baby care, her spouse, vision, or dental.

There should be a more compassionate system of health care in the United States than what currently exists. It is time that the doctors go back to healing for the sake of healing instead of the 3-day work week and consistent rounds of golf, and the insurance companies stop paying their CEOs nearly a million dollars a year. It is time for all Americans, human beings, to have access to health care, to quality health care. No more mothers dying on the waiting room floor of ERs waiting for ambulances to take them to another hospital. No more epidemics taking our children and parents. No more rich versus poor in the game of life.

Yes, not all doctors are in it for the money, and they deserve compensation for their years of education and long hours, but not all are as virtuous as the doctors held up as examples of the wonder that is medicine.

Health care is increasingly expensive in the United States, is it time to adopt European style universal health care?

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

The single most effective challenge to the United States’ adherence to a market system is in the realm of health care. What most of the defenders of a market system fail to recognize is that the United States health care system is already decidedly non-market.

As Edith Rasell argues:

“But for at least two reasons the price and sales of health care services are not restrained by the usual market forces. First, for many people, not buying a recommended health care service is not an option. If a doctor recommends a particular medicine or procedure, most people will follow the recommendation, even if it means going without other things to pay for it. In many cases the price of the test or procedure plays a small role in the decision about whether to buy it.

The influence of market forces on health care is also influenced by the fact that most people have health insurance. Having health care coverage is a priority for many people, despite the expense. But when someone has an insurance policy, the cost of actual care is only a fraction of the total cost and may be zero. Thus, the effect of price on determining if the service will be purchased is diminished.” (70)

Further undermining the competitive nature of the industry is that the individuals who are best able to distinguish between the competing insurance corporations (i.e. the sickly) are the self-same customers that the companies look to avoid in order to keep down rates. Thus, in some sense, there is a real positive incentive for insurance companies to provide disservice, so as not to attract too many knowledgeable invalids.

Since a simple market model of the United States health care system is so dreadfully flawed, opponents of a socialized approach to medicine are disingenuous if they represent the medical conflict as one between government control and control by “the invisible hand.” Instead, it becomes merely a contest between the efficiency of two different bureaucracies. Furthermore, since the United States has the highest health care expenditures of any country in the world, spending 13.6% of income on health services, while simultaneously lagging much of the rest of the developed world in life expectancy, and more importantly healthy life expectancy, where it ranks 24th at 70 years, just 1.6 years ahead of nearby Cuba (WHO), it seems a strong argument can be made for at least some fundamental change.

Furthermore, the higher prices of the health care in the United States often go to financing non-essentials. Hospitals have impressive lobbies, and larger financial staffs, but care is not significantly improved. In addition to this effect the complexity of the health insurance industry “created costs of $67 billion over and above what the United States would pay if it had Canadian type institutions” (White 151). In a country where over 15% of the population lacks adequate health coverage, that’s $67 billion that could certainly be put to better use.

Rasell, Edith. “Health Care Reform.” Reclaiming Properity. Ed. Tom Schafer and Jeff Faux. London: M. E. Sharpe, 1996.

White, Jospeh. Competing solutions: American health care proposals and international experience. Washington. Brookings. 1995.

Finding a solution to our health care crisis – Part 2

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

“Single Payer” Health Care

A lot of talk about health care reform, if I may understate, swirls about us in the news, in film “documentaries”, in politics, on the internet and in everyday conversation. Most seem to agree that “something needs to be done” to make health care more affordable and available to all. The most vocal advocates of “reform” seek a single payer system. The only logical single payer seems to be government at some level. The current presidential campaign seems to focus on the federal government as the means to provide “fair” treatment for all Americans.

The federal system gives our elected officials the authority to pass and enact laws. They are, basically, limited to raising and spending funds, creating the agencies /bureaus to write the regulations for the law and administer the programs created, and to criminalize behavior deemed contrary to the law(s) and regulations. Once our elected officials enact enabling legislation, administering and enforcing the laws and regulations is the responsibility of the agency(s)/bureau(s).

Therefore, by definition, health care will become another government bureaucracy. Based on ALL other experiences with government, administration will be based on the following:

1. Available funds and the ability of elected officials to keep up with medical changes, inflation and population growth, and their willingness to increase funding (Raise taxes, especially in never ending election years).

2. Changes in laws brought by pressure from affected parties; i.e., special interests other than the general population and the ill. (Think drug companies, AMA, etc.)

3. The level of competence of bureaucrats combined with the complexity of regulations. (Think IRS)

4. Time lag between changes and or advances in medicine and government reaction and changes in payment for health care. (Think agricultural subsidies).

5. The ability, or lack thereof, to predict unexpected consequences and their effect on programs and care. (Think gas mileage versus safety or military operations.)

6. The need to criminalize care given to those who opt to pay for their own care, in order to insure “fairness” and to insure that doctors can not opt out of the system, unless they leave medicine. (Think the Clinton administration’s doomed plan)

There are myriad examples of government involvement in many aspects of corporate, private sector business and our personal lives. Most are well intentioned. Some are laudable. All are cumbersome, time consuming, costly and inefficient.

Government run health care will be rationed care based on dollars. Government run health care will be rationed by severity of illness and age. Government run health care payments will be behind advances in treatment, often by years. Government run health care will set payment rates for care based on dollars available, effectively ending some forms of care and eliminating some medical specialties.

Still favor government run health care?

Think Medicare.

Finding a solution to our health care crisis – Part 1

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Health care spending in the United States has reached over $2 trillion (over 16 percent of the GDP), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projects that health care expenditures will reach just over $4.1 trillion and comprise 19.6 percent of GDP. [National Health Expenditure Projections 2006-2016, CMS]. Government health care programs (mainly Medicare and Medicaid) totaled $554 billion in 2006 (about 21 percent of all government outlays, and 4.2 percent of GDP). [The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017, Congressional Budget Office, p. 54]. The CBO estimates this number to grow to $1.3 trillion (about 5.9 percent of GDP) by 2017. [Id. at 54]. Government spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet the cost of health care keeps rising. Nearly 47 million Americans are said to be uninsured and politicians are coming out of the wood-works offering numerous solutions to the health care crisis, with some even calling for “universal health care.” The cost of health care is indeed a problem today, but the solutions offered are often misguided.

Costs are high in the health care industry because of government intervention in the market place, which is stimulating artificial demand for health care while at the same time artificially restricting the supply of healthcare. Economic theory teaches us that, holding everything else constant (ceteris paribus), an increase in the demand for a product or service will increase its price, and a decrease in the supply of a product or service will increase its price. In a free market the price of any good or service in the market will tend toward an equilibrium (market clearing) price that optimizes the transactions between the demanders and suppliers. Prices, in turn, act as signaling devices in the market to tell entrepreneurs where goods and services are either overvalued or undervalued and, along with the incentive to maximize profits, drives the market to greater productivity and more efficient allocation of limited resources.

What we are experiencing in the health care industry in America is a tremendous interference in the free market allocation of healthcare. We have not had a free market health care industry in America in many decades. The decline began slowly in the early 1930s, with the advent of Blue Cross and Blue Shield and government subsidies of those industries, and received a huge kick in the wazoo in the 1960s with President Johnson’s Medicare

10 Tips On Being Independent With Home Health Care

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Health care is increasingly expensive and rising costs are a concern for most people.

Funding long-term care needs planning the US Health Department Statistics indicates that almost 10 million people in the US will require Home Health Care. And costs of care are rising each year. To cover health related contingencies people need to protect themselves with insurance that pays for home health care.

1. Well before retirement plan for any contingencies that may arise in old age. Plan on being independent in every way and put in place a rock solid financial plan.

2. Consult a retirement planning expert or insurance expert and find out the advantages and disadvantages of insurance that pays for long-term home care.

3. Surf the internet and read articles and tips on home health care and how to protect yourself financially.

4. Study your existing health policy and try and get a insurance policy that covers all aspects not covered by health care. Long term or home care becomes essential with injuries, serious illnesses, and old age.

5. Before investing in an insurance policy that covers home health care find out what in actuality the policy will cover and be sure to read the fine print. Any clauses you don’t understand ask the insurance agent or company for clarifications.

6. Buy a comprehensive policy that will meet your needs. Choose a policy that covers nursing home care, home care, and has a rider that covers expenses incurred by family during the illness like costs of food or transport to and from hospitals. Choose the coverage intelligently.

7. Find out whether the policy you are purchasing is tax qualified or non-tax qualified. When an insurance policy is tax qualified you can deduct premiums as medical expense up to the set limit.

8. When purchasing a policy think about aspects like inflation find out all about inflation protection and higher daily benefit rate. Choose wisely depending on your age, gender, family health tendencies and so on.

9. Buy home health care insurance from financially sound companies. Check aspects like independent financial ratings from sources like A M Best Company or Fitch Investors Services.

10. Practice preventive health care and take good care of your health by eating balanced meals, exercising daily and getting regular health checks.

Home health care covers a whole gamut of services: nursing care, doctors visits, companionship, light housekeeping, as well as meal preparation. While government services too provide for home care the regulations are extensive and the system cannot cover many cases. Home health care can also cover occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, and skilled nursing. Home health care is concerned with the medical needs of patients. Home health care funding is covered by leading insurance companies as well as Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act, the Veteran’s Administration, and more.

Do states have a constitutional right to set health care policy?

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

When the government plays the role of a health care surrogate, it is usually a recipe for disaster. While people are talking about Universal Health Care versus Private Health Care, it should be remembered that we have a semi private health care regulated by the government.

We do not have to go far to see Medicare and Medicaid as part of the regulations by government. Medicare and Medicaid started with good intentions. Medicare was the Federally Funded program that covered people who were 65 years of age and over as well as those with End Stage Renal Disease. Medicare also covered disability.

Medicaid was the joint Federal and State Program which helped the indigenous until they were able to find health insurance. While the State may have good intentions with these and similar programs, we have been witness to the fact that the Patient Physician Relationship has been eroded by over regulation by the state and its allies in the bureaucracy, lobbies, and insurance companies.

An example of how the state can ruin health care policy is in Tennessee. Tennessee has the Tenn Care program which was created as an alternative to the traditional Medicaid Program. It had a great start and was going to help those that could not help themselves in matters of health.

Tenn Care started to run into trouble with the politicians, citizens, and insurance companies abusing and milking the system. It arrived at a point where there was an FBI Operation called the Tennessee Waltz which managed to arrest those involved in abuse of Tenn Care.

Governor Bredesen of Tennessee almost abolished Tenn Care in order to revert to traditional Medicaid but was forced to back down after a strike inside the State’s Capitol. While most of the problems surrounding Tenn Care have been resolved, WBIR [an NBC Affiliate in Tennessee] announced the arrest of an Alabama Woman named Vicky Hookey for Tenn Care Fraud. It appears that Ms. Hookey claimed to live in Tennessee when she is a resident of Alabama.

In the process of all of the soap opera charades of Tenn Care, it was the patient that suffered because of the state setting up a health care policy instead of leaving health care to the patient and the Physician.

While there have been some exceptions such as the success of the Dirigo Health Program in Maine, many states have had to deal with excessive bureaucracy, lobbyists, and the insurance companies when it comes to health care policy. The majority of times, this has lead to the patient losing his or her battle for better health.

It must be remembered that the bureaucrats, lobbyists, and insurance companies may have employees who have never set foot in Medical School or any other Schools where Health Care is taught. The interests of the bureaucrats, lobbyists, and insurance companies is only to acquire money for themselves and to give to the state what the state wants.

There have been some exceptions to the rule such as the Health Care Program in the Commonwealth of Kentucky called KY Health Choices. KY Health Care is one of the few programs in the United States of America that assigns responsibility to the beneficiary. There is the requirement to be responsible for payments based on an income based sliding fee scale.

KY health Choices also provides incentives for those who engage in preventive behavior such as smoking cessation and weight loss programs. The program is also uses practices that have functioned in the private sector to develop programs for mental and physical health.

Reference:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/h ealth/kymedicaid.htm

http://www.wbir.com/news/local /story.aspx?storyid=77009

Nursing: Commitment to quality health care

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Health Care Verus Quality Health Care In Nursing

Is there a difference between health care and quality health care, as it pertains to the nursing profession?

A commitment to quality health care in nursing is more than just a vague commitment to health care, as an unknown abstract entity, that can be misconstrued as being relatively insignificant, from a global perspective.

Professional registered nurses always play a major role in establishing, maintaining and improving the standards of quality health care in nursing, all around the world.

What does the word commitment mean to professional registered nurses and nursing care? Individually and collectively, registered nurses are always committed to quality health care in nursing.

Commitment is an act of committing to a charge or trust. It is also an act of referring a matter to a legislative committee. It is an agreement, or a pledge to do something in the future, or the state of being obligated or emotionally impelled. (1)

The word commitment is significant for professional registered nurses, who assume the responsibility for the high standard of quality health care in nursing, for every generation. Nursing as a profession, is a trust that is been placed in the hands of registered nurses, by people everywhere. Appropriate standards, rules and regulations are established, maintained and continually re-evaluated.

There is a mutual agreement amongst registered nurses to continually uphold their nursing profession at all times and in all places. Nursing is a serious commitment by professional registered nurses and for many Christian registered nurses, it is a commitment based upon the love of God and one another.

This commitment takes the past and present into consideration and is directed towards the future. This means that there is always room for future progress in the nursing profession.

In differentiating between health care and quality health care, can we actually choose one instead of the other?

Yes, we can. First of all, there are different kinds of health care. For example there are medical, dental, nursing and other associated kinds of health care. This discussion is directed primarily towards quality health care in nursing.

On a continuum of zero to ten, the total absence of health care would be zero, the lowest level of health care would be one and highest level of heath care, or quality health care would be ten.

The ideal for professional nursing

Is rationing health care for seniors on the health care horizon?

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Fox news reviewed some of the “things” that may have been included in the new stimulus package, which most certainly be passed in a short time. One inclusion that was referenced is the “rationing health care for seniors”. Although it does seem out of place in the stimulus package. Most believe that health care will be next on the agenda for our new president.

We all know the time has come that in order to afford the high standard of care that we have become accustomed. Something has to give or most certainly change. It is a hard fact of life and a big step, but it will be taken whether we like it or not.

Rationing health care for seniors makes sense. As long as the priorities are right. Who among us has the least to lose? It would however , require a new mind set. A change in how we believe things should be in our health care delivery system. In health care, the goal has been and should be the pursuit of excellence in care. However, attaining and maintaining this goal, is now cost prohibitive.

There are movements going on in new directions. The latest workshop from “Savings Beyond Price” blog. Robert T. Yoki – President and chief value Strategist. Strategic Value Analysis {R} In Health care. Shares ideas on how to move forward. The early stages for changing health care are as visible as they are necessary.

To change health care, Yoki advocates taking one small step in the right direction. So where do we begin. Wise minds are hopefully working to redesign our health care delivery system. In our lifetime I imagine these changes will not come easily, but they will come none the less.

Perhaps rationing health care for seniors is the beginning of the beginning, but certainly not the end to a long unpaved road. It will not be a pleasure trip. And it will be more like a survival course. Hopefully, the next generation will benefit from a refined health care delivery system.

In the USA, would we be wise to use our advances in health care with a greater respect? To consider carefully about those that would benefit most. And how we are to continue to pay for the delivery and the expertise needed. Limits should be set in the pursuit of a prolonged life, beyond what is reasonable and after it is of no value to the patient. It has been considered morally right by those of us that have such a compass. Yet, we continue to struggle with ambiguity. And against tides. For some of us, there are some religious implications against the removal of a feeding tube, even on a poor lifeless and mindless soul. Considered wrong by some, it has been said, that there is considerate merit to man’s suffering.

We need a change . We need appropriate health care that does not have over its head the threats of disproportionate liability for those that are in its practice . This, is what often leads to a ” defensive ” practice, thus increasing the cost of malparactice insurance and in turn, passing it on to the health care consumer. Health care, could be better with a broad stroke education available to the public on self care as it relates to basic health maintenance, and chronic disease management. It is a possibility whose time has come.

Will the change be to socialized medicine? Many other countries that have this in place are unhappy with it. As it is health care designed for the young and the well.

Many patients from other countries, come to the USA because they can afford its cost. Others who are our citizens, must walk away, as it is not within their reach.

We have been both blessed and cursed by our advances in medicine. Yet, we still have one of the best health care systems. Hopefully, in our attempt to make it affordable, we don’t have to “throw out the baby with the bath water”.